Has the KJVO movement Hijacked the IFB

[mioque]

"The TR is NOT based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus."
"
My churchlibrary contains a photographic reprint of the first version of the New Testament ever to be called the Textus Receptus. It was printed by the gebroeders Elsevier and is most certainly the work of Desiderius Erasmus.

"The KJV translation was NOT based on the Greek text of Erasmus."
"
The KJV was translated from a reprint (by a French printer Stephanus) of an earlier edition of Erasmus his Greek text. One that still contained some errors (not found in the TR), because Erasmus was in a hurry to beat his competitors in producing the first printed Greek NT. It is the later (self-)corrected version of Erasmus his work that is called the TR.
It is worth pointing out that the Vulgate and earlier English translations like the Bishop's Bible had a greater impact on the translation process of the KJV than the Greek text that was used.

The only Bible ever translated from the TR (as opposed to simply a random edition of the Majority Text described as the TR by mistake) is a Dutch Bible made in the 1630's.

 

[gb93433]

mioque:

Good points. Thanks.

 

[Askjo]

Mioque, your comments are not what my point is.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Good points.

Misunderstanding!

 

[natters]

Empty responses!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Empty responses!

No comments?

 

[natters]

Yes, I have a comment. Your replies like "your comments are not what my point is" and "Misunderstanding!" do nothing to explain what your point actually is. We're not mind readers, you know.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Yes, I have a comment. Your replies like "your comments are not what my point is" and "Misunderstanding!" do nothing to explain what your point actually is. We're not mind readers, you know.

They answered wrongly.

 

[natters]

And your explanation as to how they answered wrongly is........????

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
And your explanation as to how they answered wrongly is........????

That they learned from wrong teachings.

 

[natters]

And your explanation as to what the truth is instead is......???

Askjo, anyone can say anyone else is wrong, but without any explanation, you're just blowing wind - giving unsupported and useless opinion that nobody is interested in. Try and actually explain yourself, rather than just say someone else is wrong.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
And your explanation as to what the truth is instead is......???

Askjo, anyone can say anyone else is wrong, but without any explanation, you're just blowing wind - giving unsupported and useless opinion that nobody is interested in. Try and actually explain yourself, rather than just say someone else is wrong.

I know you and I differ each other because you are on left side and I am on right side.

 

[natters]

Sure is windy in here.

 

[gb93433]

Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[mioque]

Not in this case.
The term Textus Receptus originated as a marketing ploy to push a specific edition of the Greek New Testament compiled by Erasmus.
The term TR is sometimes misapplied to describe the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text or any Greek NT based on the work of Erasmus.

On the other hand I ought to give Stephanus a little more credit, he did work hard on improving his edition New Testament, among other things by comparing it to the Computensian Polyglot a Greek NT edition put out by the competitors of Erasmus.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by Askjo: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
And your explanation as to what the truth is instead is......???

Askjo, anyone can say anyone else is wrong, but without any explanation, you're just blowing wind - giving unsupported and useless opinion that nobody is interested in. Try and actually explain yourself, rather than just say someone else is wrong.

I know you and I differ each other because you are on left side and I am on right side.</font>[/QUOTE]That very well may be, but it does not exempt you from properly laying out your argumentation. We are to be ready to give a reason...

[ October 24, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
And your explanation as to what the truth is instead is......???

Askjo, anyone can say anyone else is wrong, but without any explanation, you're just blowing wind - giving unsupported and useless opinion that nobody is interested in. Try and actually explain yourself, rather than just say someone else is wrong.

I know you and I differ each other because you are on left side and I am on right side. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, not that's not true. He's on the right side and you're on the theological left on this one. First you are on record as saying that faith and logic are diametrically opposing concepts, when historic evangelical orthodoxy has, as one of the pillars of systematic theology always affirmed the contrary position, e.g. that they are completmentary forces. Perfect faith is perfectly logical and perfect logic, if the premises are correct should reflect God's character and therefore perfect, godly, Biblical, orthodox faith. (This is the core underpinning of all Christian apologetics). Your assertions abt. the relationship btw. faith and reason actually put you alongside Kierkegaard, Barth, the Niebuhrs and many others. You prove this by, without fail, reverting ultimately to a position that requires a person to make an irrational leap of faith in the KJVO position and without fail uses fallacies of logic and not correct logic to substantiate that same position.

Your theological affirmations are generally orthodox, Askjo. However, your underlying methodology is to the LEFT of the theological spectrum, not the right.

 

[Paul33]

Amen.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I know you and I differ each other because you are on left side and I am on right side.

Ah, then you should not have any trouble giving us the SCRIPTURAL Proof for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word.
That is, if you are truly "on right side."

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

It is simple. God promised to preserve His Word to every generation. Psalm 12:6-7. So it is here somewhere. Therefore, since Gods Word is perfect and without error, all versions cannot be the Word of God as they all omit and add words. So there must be one Bible that is the Word of God, not 100+. And of all the bibles in english out there only the KJV has stood the test of time. Its credentials are spotless no matter what people say and it has been used mightly of God. It is also the one that the Roman Catholic church hates and has tried to distroy time and again.
God says in Revelation that whosoever messes with the Word of God will be punished.Revelation 22:18.
Many of the men involved in the MVs have literaly lost their voice and cannot speak in more then a whisper. Kenneth Taylor, the author of the Living bible is one of these. On the very day his bible went to the presses he lost his voice, and all he will say is that it is because he tampered with the Word of God.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper