What Do You Think?

No I would not Dr. Pot Kettle Bob. Some pots are copperclad and some are teflon coated, but all kettles are black iron.

Of course the theology makes a difference, that's why the JW's have their own Bible now. The mormons have their book of mormom and just for the sake of it, {others} have mv's, (that's multi-purpose vehicles), the non-gender versions have their following as well.

If you take the time to examine the posts of each one, you'll also find evidences of just how they belive by what version they "admire" most. We KJB people admire the old paths, they are proven, tried and true.

(Moderator's note: Ricky, please call modern version advocates MVPs. Most Valuable People) Love you brother!

[ June 17, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

You conviently forgot to mention their good ol' KJV as well.

Neal

P.S. And before I am accused of it, no, the fact that the Mormons use the KJV does not discredit it. But for those who like to link Greek texts and translations to heretical groups it needs to be pointed out that the KJV would fail their own test.

 

You conviently forgot to mention their good ol' KJV as well.

Neal

P.S. And before I am accused of it, no, the fact that the Mormons use the KJV does not discredit it. But for those who like to link Greek texts and translations to heretical groups it needs to be pointed out that the KJV would fail their own test. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh-oh, does that mean the new versions fall into the same catgory as the book of mormon and that jw book as well? Or does it possibly mean there is more to the KJB than one would like to admit?

Maybe it DOES have to do a little more with the KJB translators theology that the devil wants to make sure he attacks it in every possible way?

I haven't back tracked to see who said it, but no, I am an IFB and I don't believe for a minute any of the KJB translators was lost. I guess that detracks from the topic. Ever wonder why the KJB always seems to come up in these discussion? Must be something to the KJB!

 

Your "old paths" of christening infants, having a hereditary head of state as 'head of the church,' and imprisoning, beating, and mutilating those who teach otherwise ain't for me, Izzy.

 

Can we try to get back on topic. This thread is crawling onto the chopping block.

 

No, I don't wonder. KJVOs won't let a thread go without bringing up the KJV.

Neal

 

No, I don't wonder. KJVOs won't let a thread go without bringing up the KJV.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Funny that the initiator "pastor" Bob made reference to the KJV to this thread in his first post. Is he a "KJVO"?

Also I scanned thru and found 11 posts, excluding mine, referring to the KJB or it's translators. This thread seems to be dealing with the KJB translators foremost, but I can't say entirely.

If you are trying to provoke my normal jest you're getting close. Since we don't see eye-to-eye on much of anything, or at least you seem to detract from the discussion by making your outlandish remarks, may I suggest you honour the moderators wishes and keep on topic?

Maybe you would also attack my character and post ludricrous accusations without any foundation other than criticisms meant to defame and demoralize. Alcott, God Bless you buddy!

I haven't done an indepth study of the biographies of the translators, but I have done enough to suffice my opinion, that is what was asked for in the first place, and I have full confidence in the KJB translators in doing a magnificent job in the task set before them by the honourable King James in translating the Bible into English, that has settled the all too common controversy of "what thus saith the LORD".

Psalm 12:6,7 has satisfied my curiosities and any doubts about the KJB. Although I know many have refuted scripture such as this, I won't, I have too much respect for the Word of God and it's proclaimers of Truth.

It has been for centuries, ever since the Dark Ages, that the Word has been set free from the ones who merchandised it for gain and control. That too has been the motive behind most, if not all new versions since the KJB, to sell bibles for profit and with a copywright.

Now don't try to go and say the KJB has a copywright when it has no such thing. It does have what is called printer's rights, but that has none effect on the Bible being freely printed and distributed , get this, in the King James 1611(/1769), Authorized Version, alone!

This continues on topic due to the fact that the translators of the KJB had in no wise an interest in profit from the printing or sales. We cannot say that about newer versions can we? Hmmm? I wonder how that coincides with the original post?

I seriously believe, due to that undeniable fact, that the translators of the new versions are thereby discredited. Makes sense to me and I'm just a dumb ol'plumber! (Don't chew on your fingernails, a plumbers' law for all those who've heard all the other plumber laws)
(excuse me, I have a hangnail on my thumb and need to chew it off!)

In His Holy Service, Obedient To His Command,

Brother Ricky

 

Final warning...GET BACK ON TOPIC.

 

I am doing no such thing. That is not my intention, I merely answer your posts.

Please show me what is outlandish.

Nope, I strive not to attack a person's character. You seem to want me to, but I won't do it.

I agree.

Me too.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know the motives of the MVs?

Well, to try to salvage the topic a bit. There is a big difference between the KJV and MVs. The KJV was a state endorsed translation. I don't know of any MV that the U.S. government has commissioned. You are talking apples and oranges. Even if the KJV translators wanted to make a profit it wouldn't be possible because it was a state Bible.

Does anyone know if any of the translators of MVs get royalties? This is an accusation being made as to their motives, so does anyone know anything about this?

Neal

P.S. Moderators: I apologize to you for taking this further off topic but I could not allow the accusations and insinuations being made go unanswered.

Neal

[ June 18, 2003, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

You got that right!! The KJB comes from the Manuscripts of the Protestant Reformation;the MVs come from Papal manuscripts of the dark ages.Big difference!

 

Hello MV-neverist,

I am sure you know this but I wanted to point out that the Protestants came from the Catholic Church and still held to many of their doctrines, as well as a few verses in the TR came directly from the Latin Vulgate. This doesn't discredit the KJV, but it is clear that those who used the TR did not have a theology you would agree with.

May the Lord Jesus Christ Bless You,
Neal

 

I believe the "Latin Vulgate" thing has already been explained by someone else in another thread;but just in case you missed it,or ignored it,here it is again.Jerome had to go to the Old Latin to complete his "bible." The Papal manuscripts are void of the book of Revelation to begin with.

A lot of "theologicly challenged" groups "use" the KJB;that does not change it one Iota.

 

No, I didn't miss it or ignore it. I just don't understand the double standard. It doesn't make sense to me. The reading that the TR got from the Vulgate does not match up to hardly any Greek manuscripts. This doesn't bother you?

Hey, you are talking to the choir. I do not discredit Bibles right off the bat because of 'connections'. I have made this clear in other places and even in the quote you have of me. But if you look at my post, it was talking of the TR, not the KJV. Do you agree with Anglican theology? Or the theology of Erasmus? Or of Calvin and Luther? No? I don't have a problem if you still use the text they used. But why are you trying to connect MVs to the Catholic Church? Luther, Calvin, and Erasmus all had connections. And the KJV is definitely tied in with the Anglicans, seeing how they translated it. Again, you seem to use a double standard and don't mind. This I do not understand, my friend.

May the Lord Bless Thee,
Neal

 

You're welcome, Dr! I don't know enough about the Episcopal church in America to know how they ever got into the Anglican Communion, but I don't think they were ever "proper" Chruch of England. After all, I think nearly all the colonists the English sent over were non-conformists - they were happy to leave, and we were happy to see them go! Consequently, I don't think the church of England ever had that much influence in America.

Well, I'm not saying they believe "the same" as us (obviously, we differ on the subject of baptism), but there have certainly been problems in its history! Now, I'm no expert, but this is how I think it worked:

In 1534, Henry VIII passed the "Act of Supremacy", which removed official Papal influence in England, and made Henry "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England". The CofE was born. Passed mainly for political reasons (principly so he could get his marriage annuled - a thing other royals had no problem getting the Pope to agree to), he used the Reformation to his own ends, and appointed Protestants to important positions (included Thomas Cranmer to Archbishop of Canterbury, and other Protestants to tutor his son Edward, after he had been born). Under Henry, the CofE was similar to Catholicism, the main difference being who was in charge - although monastaries were outlawed, and he did sanction English Bibles in churches.

After his death in 1547, his son, Edward VI came to the throne, and Cranmer, along with the boy-king's guardians, continued the reformation at pace: statues were broken, stained-glass windows smashed, and paintings white-washed. In 1549 Cranmer wrote the Book of Common Prayer, which included the "Articles of Religion", which layed down the beliefs of the church - which were very much Protestant and Anti-Catholic in their words. However, it displeased many protestants, who didn't think it went far enough (Cranmer & co. seemed to think they'd have to go through the Reformation slowly in order to keep the people on board). In particular, the CofE remained the established church, complete with the eclesiastical structure of Rome.

After the death of Edward, Mary I came to the throne, killed a lot of Protestants (including Cranmer), and then died. She was succeeded by Elizabeth I, who reinsated the CofE, along with the prayer book, and had the beliefes of the church slightly modified, so that they ended up with "39 Articles".

In 1566, Elizabeth was succeeded by James I, to whom a petition was made to make the church Presbyterian (i.e. change its government; not really its beliefs). James refused (saying, "No bishops, no king"), but DID sanction a new translation of the Bible - the one we're all arguing about!!!

In 1625, James was succeeded by Charles I, and the rot started to set in. Married to a Catholic, he tried (and failed) to impose an Eclesiastical system in Scotland (the Scots had already reformed themselves and set up a Presbyterian chruch - the Church of Scotland), and started to 'Romanise' the CofE: e.g. he had the tabels used for communion fixed at the front of the church (they used to be wheeled around wherever they were needed) and had people call them "altars" (American baptists take note of this papist terminology!). The English civil war ensued in his reign (partially because of his more papist actions in the church), and he ended up beheaded in 1649.

Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector after his death, but I don't know much about the CofE under his 'reign'. However, many of the Parliamentarians (including Cromwell) were staunch Presbyterians, and defaced a lot of the churches in the land, recognising that many of the articles used and venerated were idolatry (so it was similar to Edward VI's reign).

Soon after his death, the monarchy was re-instated, and during the reigns of the other Stuarts, I think the poblems got worse (the fact that some of the kings were Catholic didn't help!). By the early 18th Century, the CofE was in a pretty bad state - full of people who weren't really Christians. I think this was because of its nature: a national institution which people had ot be ordained into to take positions in universities, for example. Obviously, the main concern wasn't real faith in Christ! However, God rose up men like John Wesley, who went around preaching the gospel in the open air, and thus we were blessed with the "Great Awakening". Note that the famous preachers at this time (including Wesley) were almost all Anglicans.

However, not long after his death, the "Methodists" (followers of Wesley) were (I think) thrown out of the CofE. I know very little about the history from here, but I think there remained many biblical churches within the CofE - after all, the 39 Articles of Religion were not altered, and still layed down Reformed Protestant beliefs. However, in 1833 the "Oxford Movement" began, whose aim was to make the CofE much more papist than it had been before, and actually (I think) to achieve re-unifaction with Rome. The CofE has been in steady spiritual decline since then, although there are still mny bible-believing churches within it.

So, in summary: the CofE was founded pretty much as a Reformed, Calvinistic, Protestant church. However, its Catholic system of government and the fact that it was a national institution lead, along with the Oxford movement, to its massive spiritual decline. Baptists had never been part of it, due to its anti-baptist beliefs, and others separated from it due to its system of government: this was the big difference between the CofE and the Presbyterians (who wanted a more biblical church government), and also the Cogregationalists (who wanted ministers to be chosen by democracy of the congreagtion). Both were baby-sprinkling Calvinists. The Methodist were later forced out, (I think) because of their evangelicalism. They were baby-sprinkling Arminians. Many others have separated from it since, as it became more influenced by "High Church" papism, and more recently as it has become more and more liberal (including ordaining women; there is even a homosexual bishop now; and the Archbishop of Canturbery is a massive heretic). However, true Christians and Christian congregations still exist within it; though why, I don't understand.

Hope that helps, and you're not asleep after reading it!

P.S. You can read the 39 Articles for yourself here.

 

Had to be one of the two..

No it dosen't.It is this simple,The Old Latin was translated from the Byzantine Manuscripts;therefore,the Old Latin will agree with the TR.However,the Papal manuscripts never contained the readings in question;they had to go to the Byzantine(TR) Manuscripts for those readings in order to make a complete bible.Now with this in mind,ALL MVs have to follow suit,being the Papal manuscripts they hail from still do not contain those readings.

 

No, it wasn't. I asked, why the double standard?

Okay. Show me where the majority of Byzantine manuscripts say "book of life" in Rev. 22:19. Or 1 John 5:7-8 as it is in the KJV.

I am afraid not. Please, address those two readings that I have pointed out. I would greatly appreciate it.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Get an "Old Latin" New Testament by Beza or Erasmus and "BOOM" there they are!! Keep in mind the Old Latin derived from the Syrian-Byzantine Manuscripts;the same ones the TRs hails from.

 

No, I afraid you don't understand. I asked to show me the majority of Byzantine manuscripts. Greek please, not Latin.

In Christ,
Neal