-
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!
I am a KJVOs
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
- Status
And He also can be found on other versions than just the Kjv!He understood, trust me.
Just kidding - thou knowest He understandeth all tongues.
Rockson
Active Member
So I suppose you're against the Bible being translated into a great many languages that help bring people from all over the world to God? Would you enroll them in English courses and not only that but of a Shakespeare kind in order to start their discipleship? God actually gave multiple languages to begin with! Genesis 11 Perhaps God was wrong to do such according to you? With all due respect my friend reconsider your position.
I have never personally met any KJVO person who is against translating the Bible into other languages. This is a straw man attack. I am a KJVO Bible believer, KJVO in that I believe it is the best and most accurate English translation that we have based on the preserved Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus,I also am a Baptist Bible Translators Institute Graduate and I believe in translating from the Hebrew Aramaic and Greek while consulting the KJV and other foreign language translations.
It’s is very rare for someone to believe the KJV is the only word of God of all the languages. Please stop with this straw man argument.
I love it too but have acquired a preference for the ASV. It's mostly what I use here on the BB.
Last edited:
I use the KJV but I don't care if other brethren use a different version... But I strictly read, study and quote from my KJV... Kentucky if I'm not mistaken you've also quoted from the YLT... To those who are KJVO, I understand where you are coming from I don't have my avatar for nothing... But a word to those who are trying to convince those that are not... This battle has been going on way too long... Leave those brethren alone!... Brother Glen
"best and most accurate - So you mean the KJV is NOT perfect!
There are very few 1611 KJV - A typical (including KJO) person uses the 1792 version of the KJ Bible.
Interesting article on the KJV from Wiki -
and before you say you cannot trust Wiki - make sure you look at the references!
thrufaithalone
New Member
I hope that's satire, because if you need a translation for "broom", you have a serious problem.
Btw, I used to be KJVonly, too, until I figured out that it slowed people down when they had to look up every other word. It's what Catholicism did when they would only allow Latin. But the original wasn't King James English - it wasn't the KJV.
Which KJV? King James Only Part 1 - YouTube
Which KJV? King James Only Part 2 - YouTube
Rockson
Active Member
I'd suggest it's not near as rare as you'd claim. All I know is what I've read from various KJO proponents which go as far to claim all other translations even in English are abominations. That thankfully doesn't seem to be your position.
yes, it WAS called a "version." the original was & is called the AV 1611" - Authorized VERSION of 1611.
The KJVO myth is not found in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that SCRIPTURE is the highest earthly authority in all matters of faith/worship. Since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a 2nd authority to justify it.WHAT IS THAT AUTHORITY, O KJVOS?
And so are many other Bible translations, English or otherwise. You CANNOT prove otherwise.
Not an error. YOUR error is assuming it is.
WHERE does Psalm 12:6-7 mention the KJV, or whe whole Psalm itself, mention it, for that matter?
Your reference to Psalm 12:6-7 shows you're under the influence of 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the "foundation stone" of the current edition of the KJVO myth, where the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" was popularized, being found in almost all subsequent KJVO propaganda. That "thingie' is false, as was shown in previous threads.
and the "authorized" part of the title of it is that is was "authorized" by King James - NOT by God!
Considering that pretty much 95% of the brethren that I associate with are KJVO, I disagree. I will say that I believe other translations are based on a corrupt texts. I’m not sure I’d use the word abomination, at best other translations are inaccurate translations made with flawed methods that are too heavily dynamic equivalence and based on corrupt source texts, at worse they are corruptions of Gods word.I'd suggest it's not near as rare as you'd claim. All I know is what I've read from various KJO proponents which go as far to claim all other translations even in English are abominations. That thankfully doesn't seem to be your position.
I do believe the KJV could be updated to more modern language in theory, I am hesitant to say the KJV has any “errors”, though I’m not exactly sure as a translation it is “perfect”, there are definately some updates that could be made to the archaic language and some things that could be updated to fit our modern English. However I do believe that our English today is becoming less precise and is generally dumbing down, I am not in favor of dropping thees and thous and ye’s for the less precise and generic “you”. In a bible translation I want precision and accuracy over all other features.
Rockson
Active Member
Why not? I mean what possible concern could you have that you would need "thee" or "thou" and not YOU? You want precision and accuracy? Jesus didn't speak "thee" or "thou" σύ, σοῦ, σοί, σέ is the word used. It means YOU. Here's the thing to not switch over don't you consider that you're setting up unnecessary roadblocks that can offend the contemporary reader. If you insist upon a "thee" and "thou" translation the current reader will throw it aside and make the claim they can't understand it. If God is only going to provide his documents in what they'd consider gibberish you're increasing the chance they'll say forget it. Not true?
Thus the NKJV
I agree with you on the source texts, as you know. But this is a kind of general statement that would be hard to prove. The CSB, NASB, and ESV are not done with dynamic/functional equivalence. (I have read through all three.) My objections to those versions are based on the source texts, not the translation method.
I'm glad you are not using the term "abomination" for any translation. That would indicate that somehow the power of God's Word can be squelched. That would mean that any missionary translation into a non-English language would be ineffective. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any translation of God's Word, no matter how clumsy or poor, has squelched the power of God. Example: suppose in the pulpit you badly misquote John 3:16 in your salvation sermon. Does that mean then that no one can get saved through your message? Has John 3:16 then been "corrupted"? I'm sure you don't believe that.
I was once at a translation conference (I was not a speaker) where in the Q & A the question of a perfect translation came up. One leader shared the testimony that he was raised believing in a perfect translation, but the first time he sat down with Bible translators into another language, and watched their very hard work and difficult discussion about how to translate a passage, he abandoned that view. In my experience, those who hold to a perfect translation have almost never participated in a missionary translation, and indeed are ignorant of the process.
The NKJV has a completely different textual basis for the Old Testament than the KJV, and it also departs from the TR in the NT, and there are a lot of translational choices in both the OT and NT that are poor. The NKJV fails to be an adequate update/revision of the KJV.
NKJV Word Changes
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvdepartsfromtr.htm
- Status