-
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!
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Refreshed writes:
>>If the KJV is representative of this
>>preservation, the other versions would fail on
>>this count due to the aforementioned
>>discrepencies between the KJV and most modern
>>versions.
You have also made a case for the King James Version; however, you have not made a "Biblical Defense of KJVO Beliefs." My Geneva Bible passes the same test.
>>If the KJV is representative of this
>>preservation, the other versions would fail on
>>this count due to the aforementioned
>>discrepencies between the KJV and most modern
>>versions.
You have also made a case for the King James Version; however, you have not made a "Biblical Defense of KJVO Beliefs." My Geneva Bible passes the same test.
How can one have a Bibilical defense for a political translation?
King James, a most ungodly man (he encouraged his daughters to dissolute lives so they would not marry and create possible succession problems, and he had a preference for teenaged boys) objected to the calvinistic footnotes in the Geneva Bible, so he gathered Puritans and others together to come up with a compromise translation. The KJV was not initially accepted by the Puritans (the evangelical wing of English Christians at the time). In fact, Bunyan, et. al., were still using the Geneva in the 1680s
Also, since the "original" KJV contained the Apocrypha, I wait with interest for a Biblical defense of that.
King James, a most ungodly man (he encouraged his daughters to dissolute lives so they would not marry and create possible succession problems, and he had a preference for teenaged boys) objected to the calvinistic footnotes in the Geneva Bible, so he gathered Puritans and others together to come up with a compromise translation. The KJV was not initially accepted by the Puritans (the evangelical wing of English Christians at the time). In fact, Bunyan, et. al., were still using the Geneva in the 1680s
Also, since the "original" KJV contained the Apocrypha, I wait with interest for a Biblical defense of that.
Thank you Brother Alcott for your charity in the matter. As I stated in my original post, 1. God promised to preserve his word and did so. 2. This preservation was done in a detailed manner. A KJVO believes the KJV was the latest manifestation of this word based upon discrepencies between the Modern Versions and the KJV.
One man's glass if half empty, another's is half full. It's a matter of perspective. If the KJV is an accurate representation of the text God preserved in detail, and the modern versions differ, it is the modern versions that are wrong.
Jason
Would you accept the opposite proposition to be a legitimate possibility? Namely, "If the NASB is an accurate representation of the text that God preserved in detail, and the KJV differs, it is the KJV that is wrong."Originally posted by Refreshed:
One man's glass if half empty, another's is half full. It's a matter of perspective. If the KJV is an accurate representation of the text God preserved in detail, and the modern versions differ, it is the modern versions that are wrong.
Jason
I don't accept either since the differences are minimal and do not effect doctrine. However, I would like to know if you are consistent.
Would you accept the opposite proposition to be a legitimate possibility? Namely, "If the NASB is an accurate representation of the text that God preserved in detail, and the KJV differs, it is the KJV that is wrong."Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
One man's glass if half empty, another's is half full. It's a matter of perspective. If the KJV is an accurate representation of the text God preserved in detail, and the modern versions differ, it is the modern versions that are wrong.
Jason
I don't accept either since the differences are minimal and do not effect doctrine. However, I would like to know if you are consistent. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course I would accept that premise if it could be proven that the NASB is accurate and preserved in detail, but I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would consider the NASB to be as accurate as the the verses in my original post seem to call for.
Jason
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Refreshed writes:
>>I was under the impression that the Geneva was
>>accepted as a valid translation by both sides.
[Hey, Jason: hope you are doing well today.]
Yes, but wouldn't that alone negate the KJVO stance? I know it's not in print, but one can still obtain copies of it.
Switching gears.....
As for the KJV containing the Apocrypha, I have never had a problem with that. I don't accept is as Scripture, but the fact that it is there has never bothered me personally. I am not a KJV-Onlyist so I know that this comment was directed at me.
Remember: if there is to be a discussion on the Apocrypha, start a new thread for that one. I would be glad to read that one as well.
>>I was under the impression that the Geneva was
>>accepted as a valid translation by both sides.
[Hey, Jason: hope you are doing well today.]
Yes, but wouldn't that alone negate the KJVO stance? I know it's not in print, but one can still obtain copies of it.
Switching gears.....
As for the KJV containing the Apocrypha, I have never had a problem with that. I don't accept is as Scripture, but the fact that it is there has never bothered me personally. I am not a KJV-Onlyist so I know that this comment was directed at me.
Remember: if there is to be a discussion on the Apocrypha, start a new thread for that one. I would be glad to read that one as well.
Bingo. Remember, I am a logic prof and the premise is to find a "BIBLICAL defense" for the KJV. KJV is not mentioned, inferred, implied in God's Word. Not even in its own Anglican translation!!
I believe one can find a "defense" for the KJV, but not a "BIBLICAL defense".
Good question. Look at the logic of the "only":
IF one assumes that the KJV is the only bible and only truth and only guide for English speaking people today,
THEN any other English translation is NOT true (and is by nature, false)
THEN any other English translation is NOT to be use as a guide
THEN even the Greek/Hebrew must be subservient to the KJV
Logical. Not correct, but logical.
And it begs the question, "WHICH" KJV is the one. For if there is one word/spelling/grammar difference in two versions of the KJV, then only ONE of those versions is, by logical necessity, the truth.
Brother, I use Greek/Hebrew and a plethora of modern and archaic versions.
I am an Adminstrator here on the Baptist Board
Are you saying these scriptures given by you support the position to stop fellowship with me and to "not respond" to me because I am "unfruitful" and "evil".
I know you can't answer since you do believe this, but I am very sorry for you. There are many like me on the BB and it obviously is not the place for you.
It has been nice having you post and you will be missed. Hope you will find a KJVO board that will allow free intercourse of ideas and discussion where all agree with you and the "unfruitful" and "evil" are not present.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Refreshed writes:
>>Interesting point, maybe most KJVO people are
>>mislabeled because I don't know of any that do
>>not include the Geneva Bible on the list of
>>acceptable translations.
Thanks, Jason.
>>Interesting point, maybe most KJVO people are
>>mislabeled because I don't know of any that do
>>not include the Geneva Bible on the list of
>>acceptable translations.
Thanks, Jason.
about 5% of the world understands Greek,what about the other 95%?
If universality of language is the litmus test, then the KJV fails on two counts:
1 - Chinese, not English, is the most spoken language per capita.
2 - The second most common language is American Business English, not Elizabethen English. Elizabethen English does not rank in the top 20.
I'm floored that you insist that this thread be intended for King James believers (which I'm one), yet you assert non-biblical issues such as language univerality.
If universality of language is the litmus test, then the KJV fails on two counts:
1 - Chinese, not English, is the most spoken language per capita.
2 - The second most common language is American Business English, not Elizabethen English. Elizabethen English does not rank in the top 20.
I'm floored that you insist that this thread be intended for King James believers (which I'm one), yet you assert non-biblical issues such as language univerality.
Arubian Baptist
New Member
Just asking, in case of a difference, how would you know which to disregard?
So....??? What is your point?? What do you expect from me now?? Congratiolations?? Help me out...
No...what happened was that Pioneer said he would not interact any more with modern versions advocates, and later on neal4christ asked if he could show a bibleverse that says to break fellowship with modernversion advocates. So I tried to be helpful and gave some verses, I also said that if any know better ones, more suitables, they must let me know...so..do you?
So...you are thinking for me...when I try to be helpful you just assume everything?..and you are sorry? Are you? There are many like you in the world too, also in all the other churches...many like you, I learned to live with them, can you live with me too?
I will be missed?? By who? By you? Are yopu sure? Or are you just trying to be nice? Pretending to be something that you are not is in my humble opinion (correct me if I am wrong) equal as lying. And what do you mean whith you will be missed? Did I say I was leaving??? ....Or has it something to do with one of your previous expressions; "I am an Adminstrator here on the Baptist Board"...hmmmmm....I am shaking
Only in heaven that will be the case...this for sure you can agree with me...right?
Arubian Baptist
New Member
Bingo. Remember, I am a logic prof and the premise is to find a "BIBLICAL defense" for the KJV. KJV is not mentioned, inferred, implied in God's Word. Not even in its own Anglican translation!!
I believe one can find a "defense" for the KJV, but not a "BIBLICAL defense". </font>[/QUOTE]I can agree with that.Neither is the NASB, NIV etc. etc....and...neither is the "Thora"...so you agree with me, that biblicaly we cannot say that the Thora is the word of God, it is not to be found in the bible...now what??