OLD SARGE
Active Member
Indeed, if you know the Word is Passover and you still practice the Catholic, pagan, antisemitic holiday associated with that word who has committed the more grievous error?
-
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?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
From Blue Bible
If you say that you are gay and you only mean that you are happy people will still look at you like you are gay in the modern sense because that is what the word has come to mean.
If you say Easter, there are very few people who would have any association of the word with a pagan holiday because the word has become synonymous with Resurrection Sunday.
When you also consider that the use of the word is in reference to the calendar and not in reference to the practices associated with either holiday, it loses a great deal of weight and value when considering what to argue about.
If you say Easter, there are very few people who would have any association of the word with a pagan holiday because the word has become synonymous with Resurrection Sunday.
When you also consider that the use of the word is in reference to the calendar and not in reference to the practices associated with either holiday, it loses a great deal of weight and value when considering what to argue about.
But the word must immediately be redefined as using the old meaning.
I have talked to a few people who looked at Easter very much like abracadabra. As if you arrange letters in a certain order and say the magic words something good or bad will happen.
There is also a group of people who think that if you can just get someone to say the prayer that they will be saved. I really know people like this. I am not oversimplifying it. I see it as some primitive form of magic that doesn’t actually exist. It is not the perfect arrangement of words that does anything. God saves because we ask Him to, because we trust that when He said whosoever will may come, He meant it. God saves men because He made a way for men to be saved through His Son and not through vain repetitions. Were that the case , I would be the first to suggest that we implement “the magic words” into every book possible. Yes it sounds ridiculous. It sounds just as ridiculous to make a big deal about “Easter,” as if something were going to happen because someone used a word that they didn’t know your meaning of. I also wouldn’t be upset with anyone for naming their daughter Dianna. She was an Ephesian god, don’t you know? How consistent are you going to be?
Just my thoughts. It doesn’t bother me that it continues to be discussed. I am not trying to sway anyone. Just food for thought.
You're actually right, I believe it was 1768? that Webster published his English Dictionary to include a standard spelling of words and switching some letters, (V&U-S&F). Look at a copy of the Declaration Of Independence, etc in the hands of the founding fathers and you'll see Webster's changes didn't have an instant effect on our language, the old writing/spelling lasted into the 19th century in some cases.
I use a KJV and have a 1611 copy. The common KJV is much easier to read and I like the lay out of a Cambridge ''Turquoise'' edition, (most common, what most printers use).
My church uses the KJV.
OLD SARGE
Active Member
Indeed, the 1881 committee was only to check for typos, letter changes, etc. None were qualified to do what they did and things went downhill after that. It does seem somewhat appalling that God used such a "bad" translation to basically convert every convert since 1611 only to allow during an age of apostasy a myriad of finer scholars using other manuscripts to add and delete at will or determine by dynamic equivalence to downgrade the very text that was the foundation of the faith they received. Just sayin'.
The translator team for the 1881 version were attempting to revise and correct the 1611 Kjv based upon early discovered manuscripts
The ERV was a significant undertaking, representing the first authorized and recognized revision of the King James Version in Great Britain. It aimed to update the language of the King James Version while also incorporating new textual discoveries and scholarship.
OLD SARGE
Active Member
But if you look at the people, they were not qualified to do such jobs.
How so? As they were among the best and brightest of their time?
The Nas translators are even more literal and formal then the 1611 Kjv group were in translation
OLD SARGE
Active Member
Ah, but the NAS lads used bad texts.
Joh_7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. KJV
The NAS leaves out the world yet making Jesus look like a liar when He went up a couple of verses later.
I was given an NAS by the lad that got me to church. I was shocked that Jesus lied. I had an RSV from a VBS many earlier, but someone must have given me a KJV. When I saw the KJV did not make Jesus look like a liar, I wondered what else was wrong and dumped it. Been KJV ever since and have not trusted translators ever since. Whatever you say about the KJV most souls who were saved for 400+ years were by a KJV or a native tongue translation from the TR. New translations come and go and as we are in an age of apostasy hard to trust anything new as dynamic equivalence is too subjective and people like the Passion Bible folks have ulterior motives and just say what they want without textual evidence or use the wrong text. I am more TR only, but the KJV is good enough for me. All of these versions have only caused division and how can you say "thus saith the Lord" when the congregation is using seven versions with different "interpretations?"
You are assuming here though that the TR more correctly reflected the original texts themselves
Ah, but the NAS lads used bad texts.
According to who?