Is there an echo in here or is it just me??:laugh:
-
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!
Some Who Approved Other Versions
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Is there an echo in here or is it just me??:laugh:
Yes, it's the "echo" of all of you slandering the KJV. I don't thinks that's funny, mexdeaf, why do you?
How does disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view supposed to equal "slander of the KJV?" The KJV translators themselves disagreed with several of the main arguments or claims of the KJV-only view.
AntennaFarmer
Member
I know a man who says (in an ugly tone) his wife is "fat", "ugly", "stupid" and "can't cook". He says these things to other people in front of her. She remains silent through the whole thing. If he were to tell me that he loves her I wouldn't believe him.
Some folks here say they are against KJVO. Then they make long lists of "faults" in the KJV. Am I then to believe them when they say they love the KJV but are only anti-KJVO?
A.F.
"Slander" definition as found and copied from Dictionary.com: (This was much easier than attempting to reproduce the one from my Webster's.)
Uh, so which of these definitions have I allegedly used regarding any Bible version??
You did say "all" I believe. Ergo, that would include me, somewhere in that "all" category.
And even after I have posted multiple times that one particular edition of the KJV and one particular edition of the NKJV are my personal choices and/or preferences for use.
BTW, both my preferences happen to be the genuine article, FTR, with my KJV being an 'Oxford' and my NKJV being a 'Nelson.'
I can speak for no other in this, nor do I attempt to do so.
[Edited to add.] I have effectively posted this same sentiment here, in the past, for one locale.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1396602&postcount=76
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
AntennaFarmer
Member
What is the purpose in pointing out a "slight error" in the KJV? Is it to discuss a particular point or prove the opposition wrong?
If KJVO finding fault with modern versions (in order to advance their agenda) is wrong then so is finding fault with the KJV to advance yours.
Fault finding just fuels the fire of Ruckmanism.
A.F.
Come on Baptist4Life, get your feelings off your shoulder. No one has slandered the KJV. Post the evidence of this supposed slander instead of tossing out your usual accusations. Put your money where your mouth is. Defend your view all you want but quit coming here and playing the innocent victim.
Harold is claiming that the KJV revisers had access to certain copies of Scripture. To straighten him out I will cite Philip W. Comfort's book :Essential Guide To Bible Versions.
"But after the King James Version was published, earlier manuscripts were discovered, which began to show deficiencies with the TR. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus (dated ca. 400) was brought to England. Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St. Catherine's Monastery located near Mount Sinai.Codex Sinaiticus,dated 350, is one of the two oldest vellum manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The earliest vellum manuscript, the Codex Vaticanus,had been in the Vatican's library since at least 1481, but was not made available to scholars until the middle of the nineteenth century. Codex Vaticanus, dated slightly earlier (ca. 325) than Codex Sinaiticus, has both the Old and New Testaments in Greek." (p. 149)
Some errors are not so slight.
Well, KJVO proponents cannot admit to any errors within the various KJV incarnations. When errors are clearly demonstrated it shows the extreme mindset of the KJVO group-think.
The fault-finding of the modern versions which KJVO adherents engage in goes beyond the bounds of rationality and ends up in mendacity. KJVO'ers try to prove that important doctrines such as the Deity of Christ, the Trinity are compromised at the very least.
When KJVO point out "errors" in the MV's they do so with the intention of telling you and me that we should not read the MV's. They are evil. However, when an error has been pointed out concerning the KJV it has not been done with the intention of telling others not to read the KJV as being some evil concoction of the devil. In fact, I cannot recall anyone on this site calling the KJV evil, unworthy, full of errors, etc. That certainly cannot be said of some of the KJVO crowd.
Then, just what is the "intention"?
Harold Garvey
New Member
It's funny when people say there are no errors in the KJV then others say there are errors in the KJV.
The symposium is thought to be against "KJVO", but then the KJV is pointed out as if it's in error as a way of speaking against a false idiom invented by some very criticising people.
Ultimately to try and expose "KJVO" as a false doctrine the version is then pointed out as if it has these "errors".
A preacher friend of mine made the same point I have made often: when it comes to being familiar with the Bible a person MUST stick to one he can quote and one that is familiar to the ear.
The effort of newer versions may be to give people an easier to read, updated language version, but then familiarity is laid aside. On top of that one is faced with the decision to choose from way too many versions to keep as a reference for Scripture memorizing.
It just makes sense to stick with what most people are familiar with concerning versions. Introduction of newer versions causes memory overload.
Isn't also just as telling when a person wants to change the entire thinking of a population he must first change the textbooks?
The symposium is thought to be against "KJVO", but then the KJV is pointed out as if it's in error as a way of speaking against a false idiom invented by some very criticising people.
Ultimately to try and expose "KJVO" as a false doctrine the version is then pointed out as if it has these "errors".
A preacher friend of mine made the same point I have made often: when it comes to being familiar with the Bible a person MUST stick to one he can quote and one that is familiar to the ear.
The effort of newer versions may be to give people an easier to read, updated language version, but then familiarity is laid aside. On top of that one is faced with the decision to choose from way too many versions to keep as a reference for Scripture memorizing.
It just makes sense to stick with what most people are familiar with concerning versions. Introduction of newer versions causes memory overload.
Isn't also just as telling when a person wants to change the entire thinking of a population he must first change the textbooks?
Before 1611, the 1560 Geneva Bible was the Bible with which most English-speaking believers were familiar. The 1560 Geneva Bible was the loved, accepted, and used English version.
Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were wrong to introduce another version when the common people already had a good translation [the Geneva Bible] that they trusted, read, and used?
RustySword
Member
He was also a big proponent of the Majority Text position, and greatly desired to do a New Testament translation based on it. I know he had done some translation before his death - I'm not sure if the translation available through E-Sword has any of his contributions in it.
Good observation. What say ye Harold?
Harold Garvey
New Member
You might think so, but that is not actually the truth.
If the Geneva Bible was as you say, then we'd still use it today.
Who uses the Geneva today? Who uses the KJV today? Who uses the NIV today? Those who used the Geneva primarally use the KJV or the NIV. Those who use the KJV don't use the NIV very often. Those who use the NIV are always consulting other versions and anticipating a new version they can read to see if they "like" it better.
I'll stick with the KJV.
You didn't answer the question.
The Geneva Bible was more popular in the American colonies until the end of the 18th Century, when the KJV was authorized by Congress.
It's not too much of a stretch to argue that the political leanings of Congress helped sway the promotion of the King James version, given the Geneva Bible's margin notes (which were pro-Calvinist and in some places, anti-authority).
There were no printers of Bibles in colonial America, so in a way you're right, but the point is moot. It's not what was being printed that matters, but what was being read and used.
- Status