I WISH I COULD SPELL! Forgive me everyone. What a maroon! :D
Branham may have taught it (Probably so did David Koresh) but he didn't start it. But GH Peters (who seems more to agree with you BTW, and who died the year Branham was born, 1909) debated the issue in "The Theocratic Kingdom" Vol 3 P 378.
He quotes Lincoln ("Lects on Rev."), Swormstedt ("The End Of The Word is Near") and Barbour ("Three Worlds")as holding the "church age" theory.
But your point is well taken. I don't believe in any way that the primary application of Rev 2 & 3 is prophetic. It is historical. But I also believe that we can make some prophetic applications where they fit. (If it smells like Laodicea, and tastes like Laodicea, it applies.)
Lacy
The war has been won against KJVO?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Jun 27, 2004.
Page 2 of 7
-
-
Their Bible was the Old Itala translation (1400 years before the AV1611) which family (Itala) BTW has widely divergent textual variations as does the Alexandrian original mss. It doesn't seem to have hurt their spirituality.
HankD -
So A-A if I translated a Bible now from a Byzatine text would you accept it. I think the answer would be no. You just use the manuscript thing as an excuse. If I translated a Bible from Byzatine texts you would not quite using your KJV and start using the modern version. And they used the Latin Vulgate during the translation process of the KJV. In fact the last 6 verses of Revelation is exempt from most Byzatine texts for those the KJV translators went to the latin vulgate.
-
-
Daniel David,
In the south KJVOism seems to have the strongest hold. It is true that many of our local KJVO churches are not growing and some are actually declining. I live in the south and I grew up in the Bible Belt. At every turn we have a small bunch of rabid KJVOist going door to door spreading the disease of KJVOism.
I was a hard core KJVOist for over seven years. I came out of the KJVO Camp when I studied a reprint of the AV1611 and I understood that the whole KJVO Camp's foundation is built upon the sinking sands of distortions and lies.
Accountability is something that is totally lacking in the KJVO Camp. One KJVO says something that is false and the rest of the Camp runs with it. How many KJVOist correct Riplinger, Gipp, Waite, Cloud, or Ruckman? Riplinger put her lies in ink and the KJVO Camp does not have enough integrity to correct her errors and slander! I could list more example and one day I might.
I think that people in my home state are really getting sick and tired of KJVO lies, slander, hateful tactics, arrogance, and judging everything under the sun that is not KJVO. These qualities that are found in many KJVO materials are the same qualities that the Bible calls the spirit of anti-christ.
KJVOist use the similar methods that Mormons use in order to spread KJVOism. These methods are emotional based, the use of fear, distortions, and taking scripture out of context. These methods are very effective in that many of the KJVOist refer to themselves as the defenders of the only true bible, etc... If you compare Mormon growth to KJVOism growth you will find a shocking fact. The base foundation that each group uses is actually the same! The Mormon’s are by far the larger group. The Mormons are a cult just like the SDA. KJVOist use the same methods as these cults to spread KJVOism. The problem for KJVOist around where I live is that many of us are researching the facts for ourselves. Researching the facts outside of KJVO approved material is a big NO NO! There will always be a sucker for every gimmick and KJVOism is solid proof of that theory.
Let’s step back and look at KJVOism since the age of the information. Prior to the internet Joe Bloe KJVO could say and preach anything from the pulpit about a modern version. The laymen could not research these statements without spending a great deal of time and money to order the material needed to research the KJVO claims. KJVOist used to proudly proclaim “AV1611” King James Bible simply because most people where ignorant to the fact that the AV1611 was different from the current KJV’s. Take a look at KJVOism before 1990 verses KJVOism today. We now have KJVOist like Cloud, Gipp, and Chick trying to explain away the AV1611. KJVOist today are more on the offense trying to discourage people from researching the facts. They now say KJB instead of AV1611 for the most part. Don’t take my word for it, look for yourself and think about what I have suggested.
The best way to deal with KJVOism is with the facts. Pick up a reprint of the AV1611 and let the AV1611 destroy the KJVO myths. You will find that these so called AV1611KJB believers actually don't use and/or believe the AV1611. We have the truth on our side. There is no need for us to spin and distort like so many KJVOist leaders.
All KJVOism has is an emotional reasoning for being a KJVOist. They can not give us scripture to support KJVOism. They can not tell us why they don't use a real AV1611. They can not show us in the scriptures where God who preserve His Word in the year 1769, etc...
All the KJVO Camp has to go on in distortions, lies, slander, conspiracy theories, and scripture taken out of context.
If we sit back and do nothing then KJVOism will spread like wild fire simply because it tampers with a so called noble goal to defend God’s Word. God’s Word does not need defending simply because it defends itself when under attack. The JW’s tried to distort God’s Word but JW’s lies are exposed. Down through history God has defended His Word. The KJVO notion of defending the KJV is something totally foreign to the AV1611 translators themselves. If the AV1611 translators are KJVOist, then the KJV today would be the AV1611 with the Apocrypha and marginal notes.
It is up to us who know the truth to preach the truth in love and truth. We are to warn our church brethren about the KJVO Camp and provide them with factual evidence. We should pray that God shows many KJVOist the truth( I am thankful that when I prayed to know the truth about the bible version issue that God answered my prayers). If we stand with truth and teach the truth then we will see a decline in KJVOism across the board. Today many Baptist are not KJVO but that could drastically change in the next 20 years if KJVO lies go unchallenged.
As for me I will armor myself with prayer and truth. I will keep reference materials in my van, my bible, etc.. so that I can defend the traditional views on bible versions from KJVOist who are blinded by the lies created by BW and David Ottis Fuller. I will not be hateful and I will not resort to lies and slander. I will not stand still and let KJVOism destroy someone’s faith in a modern version of the Word of the Most High.
In all honesty it’s up to us to stop the spread of KJVOism. I’m not saying to take away the KJV. There is nothing wrong will only using a KJV.
Just my thoughts,
D. J. Horn -
Your position is not a possibly supportable MSSO, it's the absolutely uscriptural KJVO. -
-
Pastor Bob, my response is that W & H did not translate anything. They simply compiled the manuscripts they found. However, I just as readily reject their anglicanism.
A major difference is how the KJV actually reflects anglicanism. Is there anything about the WH text that reflects their anglicanism? -
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
But Bob, they simply took what they had. W & H aren't guilty of deleting Scripture. They took what they had and put it together. It isn't like they came across 1 John 5:7 and decided to gut it. It wasn't in the text they had.
I completely reject anglicanism in any form. I have no desire to protect W & H. My point was that they didn't actually put that text into another language and make it conform to theological ideas. -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
There are examples in their NT where not only the Majority Byzantine reads differently, but even other examples of the Alexandrian text type read differently from Aleph and B but they followed Aleph and B anyway.
Their own writings display the bias they had against the traditional text type, calling it "vile" (the 19th century answer to "perversion"). If Westcott and Hort were alive today, they could not post on the Baptist Board because such language regarding bible texts is forbidden by the rules! (Not to mention, of course, they were not Baptists.) -
Good discussion. What's with this being civil and dealing with a subject without rancor? :rolleyes:
I will start a thread in theology on the 7-church ages if anyone is inclined to follow THAT "rabbit-trail". -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
As you know, Westcott and Hort were Anglican in persuasion. They were both graduates of Cambridge. And they based the overwhelming majority of their new Greek text on Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B). Their Greek text is the basis for the modern critical text.
As I stated above, these two texts are conflicting in many instances. Burgon said,
Philip Mauro implied in his work, Which Version? Authorized or Revised? That Aleph was originally copied from the Received Text and that “deliberate changes were intentionally made to modify it to suit the theological disposition of the correctors.”
It is obvious that W/H’s objective was to make a text that was far removed from the Textus Receptus. Hort himself referred to the TR as “vile.”
Textual historian Jakob Van Bruggen said,
That Hort would add his own theology to the text is clear by the words of his son Arthur Hort.
W/H did not hesitate to add their own conjecture even in the face of significant mss evidence.
With these thoughts in mind, I believe that their agenda was far more than translating a Greek text. Their objective was to manufacture a text to fit their ideals and philosophies. -
Lacy -
Is that Philadelphians as in church age Philadelphia? ;)
-
Bob, do you have any portions from any of your books where they give an example of their theology upon the text? I would agree that they went with (ultimately) their own judgment on differences.
It is a problem that everyone must examine: is it better to have a Bible based on many manuscripts that are older or a few manuscripts that are earlier.
I for a long time chose the former. Now, I believe the latter is true. -
"Is that Philadelphians as in church age Philadelphia?"
No, I think he's talking about that distinguished Philly resident, Rock Balboa. -
Or was it that Philadelphian Ben Franklin who wisely said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Somebody has been hitting the sauce . .
Page 2 of 7