pilgrim2009
New Member
W&H have nothing to do with the version being discussed - off topic
C4K
C4K
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
A 'new' Version? Today's King James Bible (TKJB)
- Thread starter franklinmonroe
- Start date
Hmmm, that didn't seem to work for Bob Gray down in Fl, Ray Batema, David Koresh over in Waco, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, and a host of others who "stayed with the KJV", but somehow they went wrong.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Also, (dis)honorable mention: Jack Hyles
Last edited by a moderator:
MP never made that assertion. It is only what you falsely imposed upon him. Of course when you begin with the worldly philosophy that only one can ever be right then you walk through life with blinders on. I am not a fan of the NIV but it is quite a wild and absurd assertion that "all others" have to be wrong. We want scripture to be handled correctly but we do not need to worship a particular translation. And by the way I only use the KJV however I am not a KJV worshiper.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
of course, i have to weigh all these allegations against the consistent lies emanating out of KJBOism, including the constant Edenic hissing of "Yea hath God said" against my copies of the Bible.
on top of that, there's the repeated oversimplification of the wiles of the devil. yes, of course, Satan attacks God's word and words. we see that most clearly in KJBOism's mockery of God's words as PERversions or corruptions or, in the words of some KJBO chief priests, "diabolically inspired" books.
speaking of JWs, they LOVE the KJB more than any of the MVs--for one reason: the MVs proclaim the deity of Christ more clearly than the KJB.
nobody's advocating that we shd not stay with the KJB ... it's another lie to suggest so. but it's a different thing to stay with the KJB Only.
Actually I had that name on there on my initial draft of the response, but thought better of it. I agree with you, however.
Steven, answer the OP or leave this thread. You are putting yet another black eye on the reputation of the KJVO sect.
You just like riplinger can't even answer a direct question.
Is the Bible in the OP a true KJV? Is it a true Bible? Answer that or you have no business in this thread.
I for one would have loved the TKJV when I was in a church that used the KJV. I always wanted one like that and now I use the ESV which does have formatting like that.
You just like riplinger can't even answer a direct question.
Is the Bible in the OP a true KJV? Is it a true Bible? Answer that or you have no business in this thread.
I for one would have loved the TKJV when I was in a church that used the KJV. I always wanted one like that and now I use the ESV which does have formatting like that.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
These format changes are not exactly 'new'. There have been editions already of the KJV text in paragraph form. 'Red letter' editions of the KJV have already put the words of Christ in 'virtual' quote marks. In some passages (in John, for example) it is asserted that the direct dialog of Jesus and that of the narration (writer's words) is ambiguous. So, could this formatting alone alter the meaning or message of the KJV text?
The unique feature is that the TJKB has now extended the quotation marks into the OT and other dialog of the NT. Could this be a problem? How? (specific examples, if possible)
I like the paragraph formatting in the Bible. I have no problem updating the archaic words and phrases in the KJV. I do this when I read it. I don't say every est, eth ect. word ending. I say the modern words as I read it.
I have heard the accusation of the red letters in the NT being wrong, but I have never seen anyone take the Greek manuscript and prove it. So, I do not worry about it. It does not matter to me if it is a read letter edition or not. In some ways, I prefer a straight black letter edition for ease of reading - but not because I am afraid that the red letters are wrong.
I have heard the accusation of the red letters in the NT being wrong, but I have never seen anyone take the Greek manuscript and prove it. So, I do not worry about it. It does not matter to me if it is a read letter edition or not. In some ways, I prefer a straight black letter edition for ease of reading - but not because I am afraid that the red letters are wrong.
pilgrim2009
New Member
If a bible claims to be a KJV and is missing the thee`s and thou`s its not a kjv bible.
Interesting article on the importance of the thee`s and thou`s.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/thee_and_thou.htm
Interesting article on the importance of the thee`s and thou`s.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/thee_and_thou.htm
I've been looking for a place to insert this... :laugh:
As a cursory rule of thumb, that might work, but as a strict litmus test, I dont' beleive that's accurate. There are numerous translations that used "thee/thou/ye", because that was the languge of the day. It is no longer the lexicon of the day, and therefore no longer a prerequisite for being included in translations. Updating "thee/thou/ye" is no different than updating "botch", "blain", "corn", "suffer", "besom", or anyo other outdated words.
pilgrim2009
New Member
You sir can get on a slow boat to china.
Thou hast misunderstood the role of pronouns, and thou art mistaken on this subject.
Sorry I must point it out to thee.