NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
charles_creech78 said:
Charles,
No one here believes it is acceptable to add to or take away from God's word. The difference is how people think the Hebrew or Greek should be translated.
-
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!
Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?
- Thread starter 4boys4joys
- Start date
- Status
Charles,
No one here believes it is acceptable to add to or take away from God's word. The difference is how people think the Hebrew or Greek should be translated.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
EdSutton said:
Friend, perhaps you should go back and reread the rules you referenced. There is a key phrase that you overlooked. I have highlighted it for you.
The rule clearly says "in this forum" not "on this board." Therefore, our brother did not violate any Baptist Board posting rules and should not have had to endure your rebuke. Until the powers that be add this stipulation to the board posting rules, the terms mentioned are only "off limits" in the BV/T Forum and, by rule, allowed in this forum.
I voted yes, but I think that all depends on the definition of "unbiblical". I prefer "not Biblical" or the word "ascriptural" (not even sure if it's a real word, but it works). First, lets take a peek at the simple facts of KJVO.
1) Most who accept this believe do it by faith. Some try to attempt to add facts to prop up their belief, but the very foundation of onlyism is based on faith.
2) One of the fundamentals of my belief (and also that of most KJVO's) is that every bit of my faith and every bit of doctrine must be backed by scripture. Educated folks call this "Sola Scruptura". I call it "Romansa Tena Seventeena". By scripture alone.
3) There is no scriptural support for one-version-onlyism.
4) If onlyism is taken by faith without scripture to support it, then it is not a Biblical faith.
The doctrine of Onlyism parallels perfectly with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Neither has scriptural support or evidence outside of scripture to support it. Yet despite the lack of scriptural support, both are taken by faith.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with choosing a translation out of preference. But I do believe there is something wrong with putting faith into something that cannot be supported with scripture.
1) Most who accept this believe do it by faith. Some try to attempt to add facts to prop up their belief, but the very foundation of onlyism is based on faith.
2) One of the fundamentals of my belief (and also that of most KJVO's) is that every bit of my faith and every bit of doctrine must be backed by scripture. Educated folks call this "Sola Scruptura". I call it "Romansa Tena Seventeena". By scripture alone.
3) There is no scriptural support for one-version-onlyism.
4) If onlyism is taken by faith without scripture to support it, then it is not a Biblical faith.
The doctrine of Onlyism parallels perfectly with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Neither has scriptural support or evidence outside of scripture to support it. Yet despite the lack of scriptural support, both are taken by faith.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with choosing a translation out of preference. But I do believe there is something wrong with putting faith into something that cannot be supported with scripture.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Our faith is not put into a version or even the belief that one version stands alone as the preserved Word of God. Our faith is in the fact that God promised to preserve His Word. Our understanding is the fact that many extant NT mss. are corrupted and unreliable. It is a fact that of the 5,000+ extant mss., 95% of them agree with and support the KJV and other translations that are based on these mss. It is a fact that modern versions are based upon 5% of conflicting mss., and many times on just one lone manuscript.kubel said:
You see, this belief is based in substantiated facts. Where clear evidence exists, even when Scripture is silent, the belief is still justified.
Steven2006
New Member
Pastor_Bob said:
Of course any artifact that is much older it also becomes much more rare in quantity. That point really doesn't prove or even imply anything about authenticity. In fact in general the opposite is usually true, the older the more reliable to the original.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
There is some scripture that backs one up who says:
//What I am tring to say is it is not right to add
or take anything from the word of God.// it is in 22ed
Chapter of Revelation.
Nobody here has expressed that they think it is right to
add or subtract from the Word of God.
IMHO people who diss the following Bibles are attacking
me personally and my God's personal Written Word
in General. I have used or am using these:
1. NIV = New International Version:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with dozens of persons when, from reading the NIV,
they made a decisions to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and Join my
Baptist local church.
2. nKJV = New King James Version:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with a dozen people when, from reading the nKJV,
they made a decisions to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and join my
Baptist local church.
3. HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with a person when, from reading the HCSB,
they made a decision to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and join my
Baptist local church.
4. KJV1769 Editions - King James Version:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with dozens of persons when,
from reading the KJV1769 Editions,
they made a decisions to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and join my
Baptist local church.
5 KJV1873 Edition - King James Version:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with dozens of persons when,
from reading the KJV1873 Editions,
they made a decisions to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and join my
Baptist local church.
6. TLB - The Living Bible:
I have been allowed to God to be used to be the
one that was with dozens of persons when,
from reading the TLB,
they made a decision to accept Christ as their Savior,
follow Christ in believers baptism, and join my
Baptist local church.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
directed to Brother 'dan e' said:
I find nothing whatsoever in the posts(s) to suggest
that Brother 'Dan e' said that, appeared to be saying that,
etc. Therefore we must assume that that a Freudian slip
has been made - this is called 'projection' a mental oops
where one projects their own case upon that of another.
BTW, in ones search for the diamond
of "the truth about the word of God and why it
is being translated so much" it is bad form to look in
the pig trough of old translations. In fact, I myself have
shown older translations that are readily available on-line
at no cost whatsoever.
Unfortunately you have asked a bad question.
This question, should you find an answer, will not
be the truth. Here is a much better question that will lead
to much truth:
How is God in His Divine Preserving Providence
blessing the English Reader by providing
a wealth of absolultley correct translations, versions, etc.?
That question, when you find the answer, will yeild the
truth that you seek. But first the correct question must be
asked.
charles_creech78 said:
Charles, you and I disagree over versions.. this is obvious.
But I admire you... for you are not pig headed! :laugh:
You actually remind me of me 7 yrs ago... (sorry!)
I started searching for the truth.. and what I found was that Jesus used another version than the one the KJV used in the OT...
Now, shouldn't we use the same version Jesus did? Or was He wrong?
But keep searching, digging, for the truth. Dig until you have settled this in your heart. I have, and I am not KJVO now.
I know other fine Christians that are KJVO..
And in reality.. people should stop talking about using their version.. and actually get down to using it.
I really wonder how much time we waste.
I appreciate your spirit..
Pastor_Bob said:
While this rule is not specified here, or other forums on the board, the spirit of the rule should be carried out on every forum..
So it would be OK, to call the KJV a perversion, and call it the King Jimmy Bible here? hmmm... I won't though.
And I have never heard it called a pickled preserved version.... What does that mean anyway!!! BTW.. I hate anything pickled!
OK... So shouldn't this discussion be moved to the right forum anyway?
That way, the rules would apply. I have been surprised that the mods let it stay here anyway... I thought they had some rules or guidelines that said that threads about versions would go in the versions forum...
And is there a way to petition the powers that be to make these rules apply across the board? I mean if you can't call the NIV a perversion in the versions forum, it is inconsistant to allow it in any other...
So can we get a rule change?... one that would be more consistant.
Pastor_Bob said:
We will have to agree to disagree here
. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that your stand as you described it is an accurate representation of most onlyists (or of the topic of this thread for that matter). And by your stand, I don't see how one could take these "substantiated facts" and "Gods promise to preserve His word" and make a sudden leap to KJV.
I just don't see how the connection could be made, and how one would rationalize their choice of the KJV specifically over all other TR based translations, without faith. It seems to me that an attempt is made to substantiate the position of onlyism and to bash modern versions only after onylism is incorporated into ones faith.
Neither facts nor scripture point to the stand of KJV-Only.
BTW: I came out of the KJVO movement only a few years ago. It was definitely faith for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Please note:
This thread has been moved to the Versions forum where it is subject to much stricter regulation. Please see the stickies at the top of this forum for the rules here.
-Roger
C4K
This thread has been moved to the Versions forum where it is subject to much stricter regulation. Please see the stickies at the top of this forum for the rules here.
-Roger
C4K
I should have added this, to the post when I put it forth. If I have offended anyone by calling attention to something that I do not like, it is not intended to be personally directed at anyone, and I hold no ill will toward anyone, as well. I accepted the apology offered, even though it was not needed, from Brother charles_creech78. As Pastor_Bob pointed out, my own remarks could have been seen to be out of 'Forum' guidelines, as well. So if I have overstepped, let me offer my own apology here to any and all. And I hope all will take my apology, as well. Perhaps I do not always come across anywhere nearly as humble as did charles_creech78, when he offered the apology to me. I'll try and do better.EdSutton said:
I'll also use this space to offer a counterpoint to tinytim, and Rippon. While I understand what one is saying and the other agreeing with, I do not believe we necessarily need any more 'rules' for the various forums on the BB, personally. The Webmaster, Administrators, and Moderators have the authority to remove posts, move threads, etc. up to and including banning of individuals from the BB entirely, if it comes to that.
Each and every one of us, with the possible exception of the owner(s) of the Baptist Board, are subject to the same rules. And we are all, or at least should be, subject to the authority of Christ and Scripture. As the Webmaster, who is the Owner, I think, as well?? is also, I believe, a Pastor, I'm pretty sure he is under this authority, as well. And I believe there is a verse of Scripture that says words to the effect of "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt...".
I suggest that that verse, along with the posting rule of showing grace to other posters, if followed, is enough to alleviate many, if not all, problems one may encounter. (And if I have done a poor job of taking my own advice, I apologize, again, first to charles_creech78, second to Pastor_Bob, and third, to any and all others to whom I should apologize.) If these two things are followed, there is little need for a lot more, rules, IMO. So I will attempt to do a better job in this, myself. Anyone else want to join me, here?
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct me if I am wrong, here, but don't about 99% of all (supposed) "manuscript" questions usually involve the NT?? How come I see so few about the OT MSS? And should any questions regarding the so-called Massoretic text, which is far more removed from the actual writing dates of the OT Scriptures, when there happens to be a variance with or from the LXX and/or the Qumran scrolls, merely be regarded as "chopped liver"?Pastor_Bob said:
Ed
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Ed Edwards with additions also by Ed Edwards (underlilned) said:
Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it! :thumbs:
Proverbs 11:30 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
The fruite of the righteous is as a tree of life,
and he that winneth soules, is wise.
What is in your fruit tree?
charles_creech78
New Member
Post Dan E to Charles_Creech 78 Personally, I don't limit my faith in God's ability to spread His divinely inspired message to just one translation. There is no logic, or sense, in saying "older is better" or "closer" to the word of God. I'm not going to challenge you on your understanding, or lack of, on the history of KJV....rather you might be a interested in learning about how some of the "newer ones" were translated. You might be surprised, and you'll probably not disrespect some of those translators so much. It is a little naive and arrogant to suggest they translated according to their own desires. That is a lot of people who invested a lot of years into something, and you slam them like that, not because of any rational reason, but because "older is better". Give me a break. You're logic makes no sense....but whatever. { Ed do you really think ill of me that I would lie to you. He called me these things because of what I believe. He calls me naive and arrogant but I am the onlyone that points out that scripture has been taken out of the NIV and alot of it. But again it must be my mental oops ED.Ed Edwards said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Mosta us see just how artificial and man-made the whole KJVO position is, filled with EXCUSES and not valid reasons. However, there's nothing wrong with using only the KJV from PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
While it's certainly not unbiblical to use the KJV or any other one valid version alone from personal preference, it IS unbiblical to subscribe to the man-made KJVO doctrine that declares that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there....or to any other such onlyism doctrine for any one version.
While it's certainly not unbiblical to use the KJV or any other one valid version alone from personal preference, it IS unbiblical to subscribe to the man-made KJVO doctrine that declares that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there....or to any other such onlyism doctrine for any one version.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
dan e. in post #125 said:
That was a correct citation of a post cited incorrectly in #157.
Charles_Creech78 said:
I disagree, if you speak of post 125.
Dan e.'s post was to everybody who reads this
topic - NOT just to Chareles_Creech.
//It is a little naive and arrogant to suggest they
translated according to their own desires.//
Has a subject of 'it' not 'a person'.
(Even if it were against a person, that person is NOT specified
in any way - Brother Dan e describles a shoe - anybody who
wishes may wear it.
So our brother is saying the THOUGHT (or statement) is
"a little naive & arrogant" not anybody personally.
I believe it was mentioned before, "the bit dog yelps".
So it looks to me like you have declared yourself guilty.
Brother Dan e showed a mirror -- you, sir, saw the
ugly. It was a classic time to keep one's mouth shut.
I know I didn't even think that Brother Dan e was talking
about you until you mentioned it.
Charles_Creech78 said:
I do not think ill of you. I carefully omitted your name
in a post so that hopefully you can see that you are NOT
the subject of this thread. I'm talking as much to Brother Dan e
& Brother EdSutton & Brother Missionary C4K to Ireland &
Brother kubel who shares a lot of scripture on a lot of board
for new Christians & some other nice people who 'hang out'
around this Version/Translation Forum of the BB /Baptist Board/.
Brother Dan e didn't call you naive & arrogant;
Charles_Creech78 called you naive & arrogant.
"I am the onlyone
that points out that scripture has been taken out
of the NIV and alot of it."
You are not the only one. God still has 7,000
that have not bowed their knee to Baal. If you would go read all the
posts that still survive here on this Forum or have been
put in the archives Forums, then you would see that
it has been said often that "scripture has been taken
out of the NIV and a lot of it".
But this is only true of the (NEW TESTAMENT only)
TRs based
KJVs used as a basis for the comparison
to the NIV. The NIV didn't get it's text from the KJVs.
The Egyptian sources from which the NIV was larglly taken
also produced later the TRs sources. The KJVs
came from the TRs. Sorry, the history says:
there was a bunch of additions to the Holy Bible to get
the KJVs NOT a bunch of subtractions from the
Holy Bible to get to the NIV.
I would offer that I have never taken more than one version, no matter what it was, at a time to church. So I guess I am an "ONLY-est" in that regard. I have been KJVO, TEVO (That lasted about one time, as I was totally unsatisfied with the version.), NASVO (that didn't work very well, either, as I only had the NT, and any OT references or messagees could not be handled. I only did that about two months.), KJVO, ASVO, KJVO ('Old Scofield'), (then 'New Scofield', another edition of) KJV-O, MLBO, NKJVO. I have even taken my wife's NIV, a couple of times, when my preferred version was in my other vehicle, or she had taken off to work with my Bible in her car, where I forgot to remove it, after the previous evening or morning service. I do admit preferrig a more formal translation, however.) And I never have had the first real problem in following what was being preached or taught in any one version. And I have even used the "pew Bible" (KJV), instead of one I was carrying, but do not like that, as the print tends to be smaller than I prefer. The point is - all the above are and were the "Holy Bible"; and I was an "ONLYest" in all the above, at one time or another.robycop3 said:
>
>
>
>
>
And, so far, at least, I have survived - relatively unscathed, with all of them, not taking too many body shots. But I have had some very sore toes, and a headache or two, after about all of them, at one time or another! You'd think it was "Open Season" on skulls and toes! :tonofbricks:
:laugh: :laugh:
Ed
- Status