• 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!

Are most Fundamental Baptists Churches KJVO then?

Baptizo

Baptizo

Active Member
Charlie24 said:
The first revision was in "84 and that's what really started the Fundamentalists on a rampage.

If you want the details, just lookup why the fundamentalists dislike the NIV.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right, there are many fundamentalists who will reject anything that is not the KJV.

The NIV has been the best selling translation for the last 20+ years, so it has become an easy target.
 
C

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Baptizo said:
The 1984 version didn’t have gender neutral language, the problem is that they don’t print it anymore unlike how the NASB still sells the ‘95.
Click to expand...

The 1984 NIV was a minor revision of the original 1978 NIV, with the primary changes focusing on gender-inclusive language, verb tenses, and vocabulary. While maintaining the core translation philosophy, it aimed to improve clarity and accessibility for contemporary readers.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. Gender-Inclusive Language: One of the most notable changes was the use of more inclusive terms to refer to both men and women, particularly when the original text implied both genders. For example, the 1984 edition sometimes replaced "man" or "he" with "someone" or "they" to better reflect the broader audience of the biblical text.

2. Verb Tenses: The 1984 revision aimed to refine verb tenses to improve clarity and readability. This involved adjusting the use of past, present, and present participle verb forms to better align with modern English usage.

3. Vocabulary and Word Choices: The 1984 edition also included some changes to vocabulary and word choices, with the goal of enhancing readability and accuracy. This involved refining the translation to better reflect the evolving English language and address potential inconsistencies.
 
X

xlsdraw

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob said:
Historic fundamentalist would NOT be "only" any man-made translation. The Bible is verbally, fully inspired and inerrant. NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION can make that claim.

We (I am openly a Fundamentalist) feel that much of the KJVonly sect (on the BB we forbid the use of the word "cult" unless referring to an identified cult like Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Oneness Pentecostal) beliefs are an ATTACK on the doctrine of inspiration. We will not cooperate or fellowship with such vile conduct and reprove them for this error.

God did NOT breath His exact perfect inerrant inspired words to 40 Anglicans in 1611. To give man's work such is blasphemy and God's judgment guaranteed.

BTW, I love the KJV1769 Oxford revision. Use it with my Scofield Reference Bible. So I am not attacking a good (but FAR from perfect) English translation of God's Words.
Click to expand...
Mock on
 
B

Ben1445

Active Member
Charlie24 said:
I can only speak for my experience in Churches where I know folks and visit for revivals in the NC/SC area of the nation.

It's not so much that they believe it's perfect, they believe it is the version God wants us to have and use.

In all of these Churches which are IFB that I know, they use only the 1611 KJV.

I was raised in an IFB from a child as far back as I can remember, I suppose the reason I have never used another version.

If you're not in that atmosphere you can't understand it. But I can't see where anyone has ever gone wrong with the 1611 KJV.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I really have to ask this question.
Do you mean this KJV 1611?IMG_2048.jpeg
 
B

Ben1445

Active Member
Charlie24 said:
I don't know what Bible that is, it looks like the original Authorized 1611 KJV with the outdated spelling.
Click to expand...
It is. This is what most everyone assumes is meant by the 1611.
I have asked some publishers which edition they print. They are very happy to reply.
For example,

Do you print the Oxford edition or the Cambridge edition KJV? Or do you have a different edition?
Thank you,


Thank you for reaching out to us. Broadman and Holman Bibles feature the authorized Pure Cambridge Edition text of the King James Version (KJV) translation.

If you are actually buying a 1611 edition, I don’t think there is a reliable font that exists for it. Any new printing is likely a photocopy printing like the one I have pictured for reference.
 
C

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Ben1445 said:
It is. This is what most everyone assumes is meant by the 1611.
I have asked some publishers which edition they print. They are very happy to reply.
For example,

Do you print the Oxford edition or the Cambridge edition KJV? Or do you have a different edition?
Thank you,


Thank you for reaching out to us. Broadman and Holman Bibles feature the authorized Pure Cambridge Edition text of the King James Version (KJV) translation.

If you are actually buying a 1611 edition, I don’t think there is a reliable font that exists for it. Any new printing is likely a photocopy printing like the one I have pictured for reference.
Click to expand...

The Authorized 1611 KJV we have today is the same as the original, minus the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, and with spelling, punctuation changes, and minus the obsolete English words that no longer exist, being replaced.

The 1769 KJV has the updated English as the 1611, but still has the Apocrypha.
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Charlie24 said:
The 1769 KJV has the updated English as the 1611, but still has the Apocrypha.
Click to expand...
Most on the BB may be unaware, Charlie24, that the 1769 still contained the horrible errors of the AV1611 in its inclusion of false books AND cross references to them from legitimate books. Latter printings use the 1769 TEXT of canonical books but not ALL the 1769 extras. Most KJV translations of God's Word used the 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford editions. Most updating of that (like the beloved 1901 ASV or equally despised RSV) used the 1769 text as base.
 
C

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob said:
Most on the BB may be unaware, Charlie24, that the 1769 still contained the horrible errors of the AV1611 in its inclusion of false books AND cross references to them from legitimate books. Latter printings use the 1769 TEXT of canonical books but not ALL the 1769 extras. Most KJV translations of God's Word used the 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford editions. Most updating of that (like the beloved 1901 ASV or equally despised RSV) used the 1769 text as base.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the original KJV translators included the extra books not considering them a part of the 66 books, but significant in history.

The RCC at that time considered them to be Scripture. With the separation between the Church of England and the RCC, and the protestant movement growing, the extra books, Apocrypha, were removed.
 
B

Ben1445

Active Member
Charlie24 said:
It's my understanding that the original KJV translators included the extra books not considering them a part of the 66 books, but significant in history.

The RCC at that time considered them to be Scripture. With the separation between the Church of England and the RCC, and the protestant movement growing, the extra books, Apocrypha, were removed.
Click to expand...
What I understand of the dates is that they are editions. When I hear someone say 1611, I expect them to be talking about that edition or something close to it (because I understand that even in the 1611 there are variations in printing based on the local spelling of certain words).
So a reprint of that edition is an exact copy minus errors made by the copier.
A different edition is the same work but contains editing. This includes everything from spelling and grammar to content and chapter updates (speaking of textbooks for example). As history continues to happen, more chapters will be added to a history book and some information will be dropped to make a textbook fit into the required curriculum length.

This is my understanding of the topic without getting into which one should be used.
I don’t think we are all using the same terminology.

Speaking as a bookseller/buyer and nothing following to be taken as a personal opinion or choice:

The KJV is the translation. (Before the translation there is the source to be considered. But one thing at a time)

With or without the Apocrypha is an option.

There are several different editions available based on the editors who did the work (Oxford or Cambridge) and when they did the work (1762, 1769, 1611, etc.)
 
C

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
Ben1445 said:
What I understand of the dates is that they are editions. When I hear someone say 1611, I expect them to be talking about that edition or something close to it (because I understand that even in the 1611 there are variations in printing based on the local spelling of certain words).
So a reprint of that edition is an exact copy minus errors made by the copier.
A different edition is the same work but contains editing. This includes everything from spelling and grammar to content and chapter updates (speaking of textbooks for example). As history continues to happen, more chapters will be added to a history book and some information will be dropped to make a textbook fit into the required curriculum length.

This is my understanding of the topic without getting into which one should be used.
I don’t think we are all using the same terminology.

Speaking as a bookseller/buyer and nothing following to be taken as a personal opinion or choice:

The KJV is the translation. (Before the translation there is the source to be considered. But one thing at a time)

With or without the Apocrypha is an option.

There are several different editions available based on the editors who did the work (Oxford or Cambridge) and when they did the work (1762, 1769, 1611, etc.)
Click to expand...

The version that we Fundamentalist's use is the Authorized 1611 KJV. That is the version that was corrected in spelling and punctuation in 1769, but minus the Apocrypha.

It's still referred to as the 1611 because no changes were made that effected the original core message.
 
B

Ben1445

Active Member
Charlie24 said:
The version that we Fundamentalist's use is the Authorized 1611 KJV. That is the version that was corrected in spelling and punctuation in 1769, but minus the Apocrypha.

It's still referred to as the 1611 because no changes were made that effected the original core message.
Click to expand...
I understand you now. From what I read in this thread, it is not widely understood this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top