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!

KJVO

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Dec 29, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 8
  1. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pastor Bob:

    Your paraphrase of the desired opinion of the MV publishers looks to be very accurate. In 1952, the RSV based on the altered Greek, the Alexandrian family, was promoted, saying, "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Yet that RSV was based on a different foundation, not using the same Antiocian family as the KJB but instead the Alexandrian foundation used for all the many new versions frequently appearing today. That claim was untrue then; it is untrue now.

    Bob Krajcik

    [​IMG]
     
    #81 Bob Krajcik, Jan 12, 2003
  2. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1
    Author:

    You showing you don’t want to offend the KJVO by advancing your version by the use of fair speech is notable. I have some suggestions for you.

    You could explain how your version follows the lineage of Jerome's Vulgate, Douay, and Clementine Vulgate and so is in the family of the official version of the Catholic Church. Bruce M. Metzger admits the Greek used by Jerome for the Latin Vulgate, now the official version of the Catholic Church, was the Allexandrian. Jerome had enmity of the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, and that rejection of the Received Text remains the Catholic Church position to this day.

    You might note that with your embracing the readings from the family of the Catholic Church, the Alexandrian family, and not the readings of the Reformation, your version puts you on the opposite side of and opposed to the Textus Receptus (Antiocian family), Tyndale's Bible, Luther's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Version.

    I haven’t recognized a willingness on the part of other’s that were wanting to advance versions based on the Alexandrian family show a desire to be sensitive to the KJVO. Thanks Author, for expressing how you want to be accurate and not overly offensive to the KJVonly camp(s) while still promoting your version.

    Bob Krajcik

    [​IMG]
     
    #82 Bob Krajcik, Jan 12, 2003
  3. Steve K.

    Steve K. Guest

    Amen Bob and Bob! The truth still cuts like a knife, or sword for those of us who still understand "old english".
     
    #83 Steve K., Jan 12, 2003
  4. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,405
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that the essence of your posts-- it's the way you yell ouch to being cut?
     
    #84 Alcott, Jan 12, 2003
  5. Steve K.

    Steve K. Guest

    I still have a bible that is quick powerful and sharper than any two edged sword .It is the KING JAMES BIBLE and it cuts me all the time.I thank God it does!
     
    #85 Steve K., Jan 12, 2003
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course this claim of "altered" is nothing more than your unfounded opinion... thus negating every conclusion you made in this post.
     
    #86 Scott J, Jan 13, 2003
  7. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for clarifying that it is an opinion. You certainly are entitled to it. My point is simply that your opinion is based on your instinct, not on what you hear MV publishers saying.

    The BEST solution is to remove all obstacles of language by putting Scripture in the language people seek while STILL fervently seeking the help of the Spirit to understand it.

    You are mistaken. The originals are the standard. Any manuscripts and translations are only "standards" to the degree that they are consistent with the autographs. Are you saying that the KJV is identical to to the autographs?
     
    #87 Siegfried, Jan 13, 2003
  8. AV Defender

    AV Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is'nt it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?
     
    #88 AV Defender, Jan 13, 2003
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that's myth.
     
    #89 Pastor Larry, Jan 13, 2003
  10. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was, then what did they believe in, in 1605?
     
    #90 BrianT, Jan 13, 2003
  11. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was, then what did they believe in, in 1605?</font>[/QUOTE]Or, for that matter, in 1768, just prior to the final revision of the KJV.

    Or was it the 1611 that was "perfect," and all succeeding editions were "per-"versions?
     
    #91 Siegfried, Jan 13, 2003
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    On a Bulletin board that says:

    This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
    discussion board that
    accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
    the perfect word of God
    and the final authority in all matters
    of faith and practice.

    I posted this:

    Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

    That if thou shalt confesse with
    thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
    beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

    It was edited out with this note:

    "Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
    by the administrator."

    The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
    allowed to remain.

    [​IMG] Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    doesn't accept quotes from
    the KJV1611. Tee hee. [​IMG]
     
    #92 Ed Edwards, Jan 13, 2003
  13. Pioneer

    Pioneer Guest

    Dear Mr. Edwards,

    Laugh now while you have the chance. You came to our discussion board knowing our stand on the King James Bible and yet you decided to stir up a little trouble. You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different bible versions trying to prove that they all stated the same thing. In the middle you used King James Bibles from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to make it look like they were all different. The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy as well as your quotes from modern versions. So laugh all you want to because I am banning you from our board.

    Bro. Steve Smith

     
    #93 Pioneer, Jan 13, 2003
  14. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,

    Just wanted to encourage you to be strong in the face of great loss.
     
    #94 Siegfried, Jan 14, 2003
  15. Maverick

    Maverick Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #95 Maverick, Jan 14, 2003
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,
    Just wanted to encourage you to be strong in the face of great loss.    </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Siegfried for the uplifting word.
    The world of encouragement is always welcome.
     
    #96 Ed Edwards, Jan 16, 2003
  17. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You seem to have the answer to your own question already in your mind....
     
    #97 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 16, 2003
  18. reubdog

    reubdog New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm new on this sight so forgive me if I'm off the argument a little. How do you KJVO folks see other churches who use the KJV, but don't subscribe to KJVOism? If they are disobedient to the point of needing to separate from them why do you call yourselves baptists and deny Soul liberty? If they are not disobedient then why all the attacks? Just curious.
    reuben
     
    #98 reubdog, Jan 17, 2003
  19. jl wade

    jl wade New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of all the translations or versions that I have read, the KJV does my heart the most good. It forces me to study and find out what God has for me to learn. It's the oldest English translation I know of; so I have to study just to understand what the old English means!!!
    And to be honest;I just don't trust any other translation. Not meaning to be hateful, just stating my position.
    Jeff Wade
     
    #99 jl wade, Jan 18, 2003
  20. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you would like the chance to compare some really old Bible versions, check out StudyLight.com where you can look at online versions of The Latin Vulgate (425 AD), The Wycliffe Bible (1395 AD), The Tyndale New Testament (1525 AD), and The Geneva Bible (1587 AD). Now if you think the KJV we use these days is hard to read, just look at these versions. The three English versions really show some changes in the language...

    ...and no matter what anyone says, the KJV that is used today IS NOT the original of 1611...

    [ January 18, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Keith M ]
     
    #100 Keith M, Jan 18, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 8
Loading...