Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

Priesthood of the Believer (a traditional Baptist Favorite)
says William S. Correa works that out with God,
Ed Edwards works that out with God, etc.

Do you want me to do a poll on which versions are valid?
I can only ask 10 or so in each quiz.

BTW, I've got some KJVO friends that think the KJV1611 Edition
is not a 'valid' translation.

Here you go, Comic Book Theology:
the KJV1611 Edition is invalid (the KJV1769 edition is valid):

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

 

Well, yes I do.... although the pot shots by KJVonlyists here have distracted this thread nearly to the restrained patience of the moderators. At any rate, I think that Robycop3's statement needs to be addressed within context, although technically, as Dr. Bob has stated, it's incorrect. The issue is of some great debate amongst some Baptists, namely IFB's and a few independent churches and Presbyterians. But, of course, Dr. Bob's question is basically whether the "KJV-only" issue is important. It really isn't an issue until those who advocate this heresy become schizmatic over it and spread their lies, destroy churches and missionary works, and revise biblical doctrine. Their leaven has the ability to destroy any notion of Christian civility and opens up the debate to ad-hominem (just look at their books and websites!) and it bestows a kind of willful ignorance to biblical doctrines and textual manuscript evidence. The issue becomes a problem when they become twice the children of hell and make proselytes of their own evil 'doctrines', which in turn continue to propagate this nonsense even to their own inbred destruction. It's disturbing to observe that the self-obsessed KJV-only culture brings to fundamentalist Christianity, and the cancer will either kill the patient or be removed by a compassionate doctor. I think the idea of that doctor being Dr. Bob is a very sensible thing to do if you're a patient who has contracted KJV-onlyitis.

 

I believe this may be a bit of an oversimplification, C4K. I have a friend who is neither IFB or even "Baptist" who is KJVO, in practice, if not technically in theory. I agree that too much blood has been spilled here that should have been spilled on other fields.

In His grace,
Ed

 

I would say, "How sad!", but that would be far too mild.

Ed

 

Daffy-nitions??

I know what "smarmy" means, but still wonder about "groddy".

Ed

 

"Groddy" means "of inferior quality, contaminated, polluted, unfit for its intended use, cruddy".

And just WHO started the KJVO myth & the controversy surrounding it? Was it the IFBs? The SBs? A non-Baptist denom? Or, was it just a few renegades who picked up something from a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST'S book & began to spread it among unknowing Christians who thought those men were correct because they had "Dr." in fronta their names, or had written a book themselves?

Are they actually concerned about God's word, or are they merely trying to milk a cash cow to the last drop?

Personally, I don't take'em seriously because their whole theory is based upon imagination & guesswork, & has absolutely NO Scriptural justification nor support...and I believe many of 'em argue for the sake of arguing...but I fight against it because there are a few Baptists & other Christians who've been tricked into actually BELIEVING their hot air.

 

Hmmm? I hear the same arguement, against Scripture, that says there is no "scriptural" proof for KJVOism, but where is Scriptural proof that it isn't?

I also hear arguement against words found in the KJB as them being archaic, but for that to be honestly true, the words would have to have been deleted or lost from the language, but they are not: "archaic" means "not in use", but these words deemed archaic are used in the very arguement against them.

Anybody else notice the sheer lunacy in the arguement against the King James Bible?

If the debate isn't important to the MV proponents, then why do they vehemently argue so much?

Why is it when they are pressed they go to the preface to the King James, persistently overlooking the humility of the translators, as some sort of "proof" against the stand for the King James Bible?

Could it be that the debate is important enough to show that those who promote the MV's also seem to canonize the "letter to the reader" and the "preface" as if they are also scripture?

It would then be no wonder to the observer, that those who argue; are only those who argue against the King James Bible, then act as if they prefer the KJB, when actually they repeatedly argue against it; the rest are simply standing on the preservation of God's Word in the KJB.


Hmmm? Isn't the preservation of God's Word important enough to argue against those versions that either confound the understanding or omit portions that concrete the understanding beyond any misinterpretation?raise: :Fish: raise:

 

Where? I have yet to see one drop of blood shed to sustain any "MV" of recent date?

If my standing cause a schizm, then it is not originated from me, that would make me innocent of the schizm.raying:
I read the "report" about the funeral, I say HOGWASH!raise: :Fish: raise:

 

AMEN Salamander!!:thumbs: You hit the nail on the head!

 

//The "issue" was never an "issue" until after the induction
of W/H texts that underlie all MV's,
including the NKJV. //

I detect a half truth and an untruth.

Half truth:
//The "issue" was never an "issue" until after the induction
of W/H texts ... //

If by W/H you mean Westcot & Hort, Greek New Testament
compilers, then the 'issue' was never an 'issue' until
after their texts. The ½-untruth is that it was like
100 years after their texts before the issue
became an issue.

Untruth:
// ... W/H texts that underlie all MV's,
including the NKJV.//

The nKJV was made to the specification of
King James Version Onlists: if you make a new translation
of the New Testament using primarily the Textus Receptus
(TR, AKA: Received Texts);
then we can accept it in addition to the Holy MOther Lode:
the King James Bibles (KJVs).

Like all modern versions, it
must and does deal with the Alexandrian Bible Witnesses
primarily in the translator footnotes.
As a side note it appears that the KJV was also influenced
by the Alexandrian line of Bibles through the Latin translations
including the Latin Vulgate.
BTW, the false idea that the translator footnotes add
doubt to Bibles comes from AFTER the nKJV was translated.
In fact, the translator footnotes clarify the Holy Bible and
make it easier to understand by adding additional witnesses
to key passage. Interesting when the translator footnotes that
enlighten the TRUTH are damned for causing doubt. The only
doubt is that i doubt that those who negate the translator
footnotes know how to explain to their church members:
1. what a translator footnote is (and not commentary footnotes)
2. what a translator footnote means.

 

Salamander: //Hmmm? I hear the same arguement, against Scripture,
that says there is no "scriptural" proof for KJVOism,
but where is Scriptural proof that it isn't?//

2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God,
& is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

BTW, in 1611 'perfect' mean 'complete',
in 2006 'perfect' can also mean 'without error'.


'All Scripture' includes the KJVs but is NOT limited
to the King James Versions.

This has been pointed out BEFORE in this very topic.
This is the scripture whereby I justify studying my
Holy Inerrent, Preserved Written Word(s) of God
in my HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/.

 

John William Burgon, the late Dean of Chichester, thought it was an issue in the 1880's.

 

Salamander: //I also hear arguement against words found in the KJB as them being archaic, but for that to be honestly true, the words would have to have been deleted or lost from the language, but they are not: "archaic" means "not in use", but these words deemed archaic are used in the very arguement against them.//

Unfortunately, you limit yourself to one and only one definition,
three are common:

from dictionary.com :

//ar·cha·ic

1. also Archaic Of, relating to, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece.
2. No longer current or applicable; antiquated: archaic laws. See Synonyms at old.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of words and language that were once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an earlier style or period.//

To bad leaning on one and only one meaning of a word LIKE leaning
on one and only one Bible can cause problems :0

 

Quote:
=Ed Edwards
The ½-untruth is that it was like 100 years after their texts before the issue became an issue.

Pastor_Bob: //John William Burgon, the late Dean of Chichester,
thought it was an issue in the 1880's.//

The issue didn't come up to more tha 1% of US Christians until
about 1994 - over 100 years after the W/H documents.

 

Absolutely agree.

That is why the IFB church in most places isn't growing. At least the 6 of them up here follow that rule and all run less than 100 members.

 

What IS legal?

You can visit http://www.uspto.gov and read up on the latest copyright laws. Beware that they are quite complex and this is one of the reasons that it is dangerous as Trotter points out.

Technically, you can quote very short portions when you are doing a report or news story, but Trotter is correct--when you begin continuously quoting from the same source it becomes very dangerous.

Another consideration when dealing with "fair copyright law" is how much of YOUR writing comes from the copyrighted document and how much is original from you. This is usually looked at from a percentage basis and anything over 10% may be scrutinized even more.

The way you have been quoting material has gone far over the line. Not only are you quoting way too much material (IMHO as a non-Copyright attorney), but you are also quoting often from the same sources and when you do quote it makes up a very large percentage of your posts.

The reason I am explaining all of this on the public forum is so that all can see how the fair-copyright laws are interpreted. I may not be 100% correct on my descriptions here and it would take an attorney's opinion to give you a better description. So, to be on the safe side, it is best to drop your clipping-and-pasting to a very bare minimum of a sentence or two and the rest of the article needs to be original.

If you cannot do this, then something must be done because you are presenting too much potential liability to the BB owners and it is our job as moderators to help protect them.

I certainly hope that you understand this and take it to heart when you post so that you may continue to post without problems.

Thank you,
Phillip

 

Yes it is!

©Forever Settled
A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible

Part Five : A Survey of English Bible History

[Compiled by Jack Moorman
On this point, the scholars of the Refomation made their Stance clear under three different aspects. First, they claimed that the Holy Scriptures had come down to them unimpaired throughout the centuries. ("Semler," McClintock and Strong, Encyclopaedia).​

Second, they recognized that to reform any manifest oversight was not placing human hands on a Divine work and was not contrary to the mind of the Lord.
And lastly, they contended that the Received Text, both in Hebrew and in Greek, as they had it in their day would so continue unto the end of time. (Brooke, "Cartwright." pp. 274, 275)
. Well that about sums it up in a nut shell and there is really no further reason to write more bibles! Why do we need so many? Why dont they just read God's word and Quit re- writting it, over and over; they got it right in 1611 and should be well enogh let Alone! And as for the English versions before the AV they were diamonds in the rough but the AV is the Finished cut and polished product! Everything else leaves one to doubt and has not proven to be that finished gem!:Fish:

 

Thank you!

Thats whats legal; but illeagle is a sick bird!:laugh:

 

All of you on this BB forum MUST read this book. :thumbs:
​

 

I second that! :thumbs: