-
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!
Rock of Ages Study Bible
- Thread starter Amy.G
- Start date
- Status
Harold Garvey
New Member
i'm sooooooooooo hurt.:sleeping_2:"'Noted Grammarian?'
Consider this post in response to the one being responded to.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1444557&postcount=48
Frankly, if I were to pick a grammarian with the choices being C4K or Harold Garvey, my choice would most likely be C4K!"
Signed, Language Cop
Reply to Dr. Bob
Evidently you believe in guilt by association. My views may not reflect the views of Rock of Ages Ministries. Maybe you should contact them to find what they believe about the Bible. How come ALL new translations try to compare their Bible with the Authorized King James Bible. For nearly 300 years it was the only Bible used by most people. I have heard the argument that the Pilgrims did not come to America with the KJV. Have you examined the thelogy of the Pilgrims? Maybe you should understand there are people who use the KJB and are not heretics as you suggest.
Evidently you believe in guilt by association. My views may not reflect the views of Rock of Ages Ministries. Maybe you should contact them to find what they believe about the Bible. How come ALL new translations try to compare their Bible with the Authorized King James Bible. For nearly 300 years it was the only Bible used by most people. I have heard the argument that the Pilgrims did not come to America with the KJV. Have you examined the thelogy of the Pilgrims? Maybe you should understand there are people who use the KJB and are not heretics as you suggest.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I have been moderating this forum for a long time. I have never seen a single post suggesting that people who use the AV are heretics.
KJV Only as "a sect"
Mr. C4K. You suggest that you have been monitoring this forum for a long time and you have never seen anyone suggest that the KJVO position is heresy. What is your definition of a "sect" suggested the KJVO groups are by Dr. Bob? Here is a definition of "sect" by www.dictionary.com. I quote: "–noun
1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
2. a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches."
Maybe there needs to be a clearer definition of what Dr. Bob meant by "sect."
Mr. C4K. You suggest that you have been monitoring this forum for a long time and you have never seen anyone suggest that the KJVO position is heresy. What is your definition of a "sect" suggested the KJVO groups are by Dr. Bob? Here is a definition of "sect" by www.dictionary.com. I quote: "–noun
1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
2. a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches."
Maybe there needs to be a clearer definition of what Dr. Bob meant by "sect."
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Here is your quote:
You also misquoted me - I did not say that I had never seen anyone say that those who hold a KJVO position are heretics.
There is a huge difference between using the KJV and holding to a KJVO position.
That quote has nothing to do with the a 'KJVO' position. MANY who use the KJV would not hold to a KJVO position.
You need to remember the context in which this discussion is set. The suggestion that the KJVO is a sect and heresy is the thought. You interjected the people who use the KJV in a generic way. I do not know anyone who believes the KJV is the word of God who are heretics. You and others evidently see the KJVO as heresy. Is this correct?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I did not interject anything - you accused people here of saying anyone who uses the KJV is a heretic. In that you are wrong. No one has ever said that people who use the KJV are heretics. I use the KJV and would not be considered a heretic.
I will keep my view of radical KJVO'ers to myself.
Bayouperson:How come ALL new translations try to compare their Bible with the Authorized King James Bible.
Cuz some men have invented a doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. Not only is this doctrine false of its own statement, but couldn't be true anyway cuz it's MAN-MADE.
Thus, people compare other versions with the KJV to provide proof positive that the KJVO doctrine wrong.
And I wonder why so many KJVOs add "authorized" when speaking of the KJV? That "authorization" doesn't matter a flying farky. If it did, the GREAT BIBLE, authorized C. 1537 by Henry VIII, should be our English Bible.
Cuz some men have invented a doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. Not only is this doctrine false of its own statement, but couldn't be true anyway cuz it's MAN-MADE.
Thus, people compare other versions with the KJV to provide proof positive that the KJVO doctrine wrong.
And I wonder why so many KJVOs add "authorized" when speaking of the KJV? That "authorization" doesn't matter a flying farky. If it did, the GREAT BIBLE, authorized C. 1537 by Henry VIII, should be our English Bible.
This will be my last post on the matter. I have preached from the NIV, NASB, NKJV and other until someone showed me the problem with the text behind these translations. I now use the KJV now because of conviction of its accuracy. In my view it is not the translation but the text that makes a Bible viable. Why not check the textual apparatus in the UBS Greek Text 3rd Editon on Acts 16:12 and see the evidence the editors used to verify the textual problem they saw in this verse. (They conveniently changed it in the 4th Edition.) In case you do not know what "CJ" means for the insertion of the word they suggest, it means "conjecture." In other words there was no manuscript evidence to support the Greek word they inserted except their opinion. Now tell me that is honesty with the Greek text. I think not. Thanks for the lively discussion.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The NKJV does not use the same text body as the NIV and the NASB. If anyone told you differently they were mistaken.
I'm amused at the way those who dislike the KJVO people parse each sentence to attempt to discredit them. I did not say the NIV, NASB and NKJV come from the same manuscripts. I was simply making an historical statemtent about my experience. (I was trained under the critical text method of understanding the Greek text.) All three of these use the same Hebrew text for the Old Testament. The NKJV uses the Majority Text which is nothing more than an eclectic text and differs from the Textus Receptus. Now you know that some KJVO people understand the difference in the texts behind the various new translations.
Your statement is incorrect. The NKJV's text was not based on the Greek text that is called the Majority Text. The NKJV's text is based on the same original language texts as the KJV. The Majority Text is only cited in the footnotes of the NKJV.
You evidently do not know the differences between the Textus Receptus of the KJV and the Majority Greek Text of the NKJV. Here is a statement from the Introduction to "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text" by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad published by Thomas Nelson,1982. They say, "The 1825 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus was employed as a working base against which the manuscript data were compared. Whenever our text differs from the Oxford Textus Recdeptus, the variation is noted in the first apparatus" (page xiii). Your claim that the Greek text of the KJV and the NKJV are the same is not true. This is why it is considered an eclectic text because they incorporate some of the readings of the critical text as well as the majority text which historically was the Textus Receptus. The advent of the Greek New Testament by Hodges and Farstad changed the understanding of the Majority Text and it is not longer the same as the Textus Receptus of the KJV.
That statement has nothing to do with the text used by the NKJV translators for their translating in the NKJV. The NKJV translators did not use that Majority Text for the text from which they translated the New Testament. Instead, the NKJV translators translated from the editions of the Textus Receptus for their N. T. text in the NKJV.
I am not sure what you mean by mixing the MT (Massoretic Text), CT (Critical Text) and TR (Textus Receptus) in discussing the NKJV. There is a difference between the manuscripts use for the OT and NT. The NKJV OT used a different text than the KJV. Here is a quote from the NKJV "Preface to the NKJV." It says, "For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves" (page xiii). The KJV used the ben Asher text of 1516-17 called the Bomberg text, not the ben Chayyim text which is the basis of the NKJV Old Testament according to the quote above.
The NKJV makes this claim in it's "Preface to the NKJV" by saying, "...because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes" (page xiv). This is conceded that they did so. But they also said "Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the footnotes as being opposed by both the Critical and Majority Texts" (page xiv). Why put a reading in the text when you are going to challenge it in the footnotes. That creates confusion to the reader. "What is the correct reading?" is a question raised by the NKJV and its "footnote references." That demonstrates a fear by the publishers that their translation is going to be rejected because it agrees with the translations based on the Critical Text which is exactly what Tomas Nelson is doing. They and those who support the NKJV are wanting a translation to compete with the KJV for these reasons and this is intellectual dishonesty.
- Status