1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is the KJV inferior to you?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Cutter, Jul 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tell The Truth

    C4K where have you been. Many men here are critical of the KJV. Just read the forums on text issues. That is why men post questions like "what is the best rendition of" and "what is the best translation"
    "THE BEST MANUSCRIPTS" " The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts" Scofield notes on Mark 16. Last I new, which is not much, this is being critical of the text. And I use a Scofield Bible.

    When you pick one over the other you are being critical. What is textual criticism?:wavey:

    Here is the definition of "critical",
    6. Inclined to find fault, or to judge with severity. Webster 1828.
    . PLEEEEASE.
    many posters on this board has found fault with the KJV. This is also why men who claim to have the best English translation in the KJV, get warned, critisied, " you KJVOnliest" mocked as "simpleton with no edgucation" and their post shut down.

    So getting back to the original post from Cutter,
    Again,Let’s define the term "inferior". Webster’s 1828 -
    1. Lower in place.
    Yes allot of men here put the old out dated, Elizabethan, week scholarship, KJV lower then the new versions. This is why they do not use it, and trust it 100%.
    PROOF just look at what they study and preach out of and you will see the true place of the KJV. YES LOWER, it is not good enough. This is why they use another version or keep running to the greek. or comparing the new versions against the KJV. The kjv is not good enough.

    You are either KJV or critical. Sorry! you canonot have it both ways.
    If intrested, Here is a great Sight if you have any questions about God's Holy Word.
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
    WARNING!!!! this sight is not for the week.

    EHUD & CO. "Just trying to keep the Honest man honest":laugh:
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    With all due respect, Ehud, that site is the same ole propaganda site and collection of hooey it's always been. Nothing new...same ole 50-yr-old trash.

    I don't believe a word it sez about Bible versions...it's all wrong.
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ehud, you are apparently one of the many people who have fallen for this myth. Just because one of the KJVs isn't someone's most-used or favorite version doesn't mean that person is critical of the KJVs. I for one love the KJVs, and one of the KJVs is one of the three Bible versions I use most frequently, along with the NKJV and the NASB. I realize there are some readings in the KJVs that are wrong and I accept this. There are also readings in the MVs that are wrong. If by "you are either KJV or critical" you mean someone uses strictly one of the KJVs, you are absolutely wrong about that. Sorry! It can be both ways despite your erroneous claim.
     
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Perhaps we too often view sins through the lens of human righteousness. I personally find homosexuallity reprehensible and repugnant. But when I stand in front of God someday, the only difference between myself and any unrepentant homosexual will be the blood of Christ which covers my sin.

    I'm not denying that God views some sin as being worse than other sins. I am just not aware that there is a scriptural basis to disqualify homosexuals (any more so than murderers, adulterers, and other sinners) from being used by God to accomplish His will.

    We would not have our English Bible today if it was required that it be only produced by sinless translators.
     
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well. Now getting back to what was being discussed. Mollencott, the lesby, was a stylistic consultant. Would not a stylistic consultant have impact over the stylometry of the book she was stylistically consulting on? Wouldn't her sodomite bias be injected into the books she was stylistically consulting on? If she wrote books like...

    "The Divine Femine: Biblical Imagery of God As Female";
    "Sensuous Spirituality: Out From Fundamentalism"
    "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Postive Christisan Response"

    ...isn't it possible that this sick world view would be injected into the style of whatever works she was involved in?

    It may be possible but in my understanding of God, I believe it to be improbable. He certainly used bad people as examples in His book, I just don't see reprobates touching his word.

     
  6. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would add that there will be some other differences. You will have had the spirit of a Christian who has been given up to a sound mind, the same can not be said of those who have been given up to that which is unnatural.

    I suspect you are familiar with this passage but as a reminder, these are the characteristics of a person such as Ms. Mollenkott...

    "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, " - Romans 1:26-30

    ...does scripture not attest that Ms. Mollenkott...

    • Has vile affections
    • Is doing things and supporting things against nature
    • Does not retain God in her knowledge
    • Has a reprobate mind
    • Is a hater of God

    How does one who does not retain God in her knowledge and is a hater of God, work on the word of God without causing it damage?

    None are without sin. However, as you rightly stated God does not view all sin as the same. A person who has been taken over by this sin condition, though it can be overcome and forgiven, working on the word of God, seems inconsistent with the characteristics of a God who elevates His word above His name.
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here is a clear case of 'cherry picking' a definition out the whole bunch to support your position. The manner in which Ehud presented the sixth definition in isolation (as if it were the definition) was intellectually dishonest. I guess he didn't want us to consider any of the other nine meanings. Here are just the first four from Webster's 1828 --
    1. Relating to criticism; nicely exact; as a critical dissertation on Homer.
    2. Having the skill or power nicely to distinguish beauties from blemishes; a a critical judge; a critical auditor; a critical ear; critical taste.
    3. Making nice distinctions; accurate; as critical rules.
    4. Capable of judging with accuracy; discerning beauties and faults; nicely judicious in matters of literature and the fine arts; as, Virgil was a critical poet.​
    That statement basically says that an individual can't use their brain and be a KJV reader at the same time.
     
    #107 franklinmonroe, Aug 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2007
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    God will judge us all, including Ms. Mollenkott. My understanding is that she was a graduate of Bob Jones University and was married to man several years, and her lesbianism did not become public until after the NIV was near finished (at which time she was dismissed). I find her current 'gay' activism repulsive. God still loves her; I pray that she will repent.

    I had never read the NIV until about a year ago. In my opinion, the NIV is a poor translation in many passages; I have no plans to read from it in the future.
     
    #108 franklinmonroe, Aug 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2007
  9. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    The answer to the original question for me is quite simply, no. I like the KJV and its my primary study Bible version.
     
  10. Lagardo

    Lagardo New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would depend greatly on what a "stylistic consultant" does. From what I understand of translation teams, those titled with "consultant" don't do much and a sylistic consultant would do even less.
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe God reckons holiness over men and their "reputable" labellings.

    Is ever a sodomite holy? No! Unholy, YES!

    According to my Bible I am sinless in the sight of God, BUT! is EVER a sodomite sinless in His sight??? NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!!!
     
  12. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    It must be nice to be sinless.

    By what are you sinless? The Blood of Christ.

    If a homosexual would get saved they would get the same treatment you would.... The Blood of Christ...

    Pride, Pride, Pride...

    Your post reeks with Pride.
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's see if I get this right. A sodomite is the only one whose sin in unforgivable??

    No, that wasn't what you said, was it. Just what you implied.
    Does the Bible say anything about this?
    Yep!! Just found something!
    Looks like that is but one classification of several groups, especially as relates to 'sexual sins', to me. One might observe that the NKJV is somewhat more specific that is the KJV, here, with the rendering, and using one word in the place of five, but I digress.

    Oh yeah, one more thing. You might want to glance at the very next verse. I'll make it more easily readable, just 'cause I'm so helpful. :D
    Sounds to me like they became some of those, who just like you are claiming (and I agree fully with your claim in this, BTW), are declared "sinless" in the sight of God, to me.

    Ya' think maybe we could at least say "Washed???" "Sanctified???" "Justified???"

    "YES!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!"

    Ed
     
    #113 EdSutton, Aug 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2007
  14. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    TT, A sodomite gets saved he is no longer a sodomite is he?

    No "pride" on my behalf and it is arrogant of you to amke that assumption.

    I am only sinless in Christ.
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that is only what the delusive mind would like to think.
    The KJB is emphatically clear and not as nearly as vague as the NKJV. "Immorality" isn't nearly as precise and leaves too much room for other sins and even allows social clauses to something not spelled out in the word of God. Your error to digress. may I suggest a regress?

    The key, Ed, is "and such WERE some of you." BUT NOW are ye washed.
     
  16. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm...

    Well, the first thing you cite is a commonly repeated myth. Perhaps you should read Tischendorf's own account of finding it wrapped in a red cloth.....

    I also note you present NO AFFIRMATIVE arguments for the inconvenient truth - in your world, God would not use a sodomite to preserve His Word, but he WOULD use:

    a) Christ-killing Jews
    b) Roman Catholic priests


    Which church?

    Oh, but you DO believe God used a Roman Catholic priest who dedicated his work to the pope, right?

    The inconsistency demonstrated in this illogic is mind-boggling, sir.

    I'm assuming this is not addressed to me.

    But I appreciate you telling all of us how God MUST or MUST NOT do something. It is quite telling how weak your position truly is.
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I admit, I don't know what any other translations rendered the word here, and am not taking the time to look it up, but in the passage I quoted (I Cor. 6:9-11) the NKJV did not use the word "immorality", at all. It used "sodomite". I'd say that is "emphatically clear" and more clear, here, at least, than the KJV rendering of "abusers of themselves with mankind", which in itself could allow for a much wider range of "other sins" and "social clauses".

    Ed
     
    #117 EdSutton, Aug 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2007
  18. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Props to the NKJV for using "sodomite" and I'd agree that's pretty clear. The thing that's muddy is why they repeat themselves as "homosexuals" and "sodomites" seem pretty synonymous.

    NKJV
    "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    1. Fornicators
    2. Idolaters
    3. Adulterers
      [*]Homosexuals
      [*]Sodomites
    4. Thieves
    5. Covetous
    6. Drunkards
    7. Revilers
    8. Extortioners

    Yet the KJV, talks of another sin that will keep one out of the Kingdom...

    KJV
    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    1. Fornicators
    2. Idolaters
    3. Adulterers
      [*]Effeminate
      [*]Abusers of Themselves with Mankind
    4. Thieves
    5. Covetous
    6. Drunkards
    7. Revilers
    8. Extortioners

    One can be effeminate and not be a sodomite so does the NKJV indicate that the effeminate will or will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
     
  19. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Technically, a homosexual does not have to be a sodomite...
    Think about it.
     
  20. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    No "myth" to anything Tischendorf is exposed for allotting the Sinaitic codex to be more authoritive than what the established church had enough of the leadership of God to preserve as if it were anything of the sort.

    The "Christ-killing Jews" is an anti-Semetic statement and does not include the whole of mankind responsible for the obedience of Christ to the cruel Cross of Calvary.

    As far as roman catholic priests go you would have to be advocating that Erasamus was the only one who could be attributed with the preservation of the word of God denying the very MSS he used in his researches. As if the only true believers were rc preists!:tonofbricks:




    Only one church universally speaking, but through the local churches which compared diligently anything ever offered as inspired MSS.



    Your folly was already answered and now it is become foolish.



    My statement was that if Mellencott was prior a sodomite that if she were truly saved she would no longer be one.

    You're acting as one of these rabid dogs who just snatched a morsel from the rotting carcass of fresh roadkill.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...