Jesus wasn't KJV-Only :)

Tom Vols said:

I assure you the Primitive Baptist brethren have nothing to do with these men. Our conviction are much deeper that even those of that group wouldn't understand!... Brother Glen

 

KJBOs love to dismiss the LXX as a myth, something that doesn't exist. the LXX obviously presents a serious problem to their theory (or myth) of KJBOism.

however, it's not so easy to throw out the LXX if its Vorlage can be found. this may not be conclusive, but a Hebrew source has been found among the DSS that underlies the LXX:

www.haaretzdaily.com/hase...&listSrc=Y

3. The Septuagint

Another new finding is connected to the Septuagint translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Greek that was done in Egypt in the third and second centuries B.C.E. According to the legend, 72 elders were sent to Egypt by the high priest in Jerusalem. They were placed in separate cells, but most amazingly, all their translations were identical. In fact, there are differences between the Septuagint translations and the Hebrew Bible, in style and meaning, and Broshi notes that up until 50 years ago, the Septuagint translation was scorned because these differences were attributed to carelessness.

At Qumran, Hebrew scrolls were found with versions that match the Septuagint translation - and not the Masoretic text, that are sometimes more euphonious. The conclusion according to Broshi: "The Septuagint translators did not make anything up."

Dimant: "Today we know that all the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text - and there are quite a lot of differences - simply reflect a different tradition of the Hebrew version. This was a period before the final redaction of the Bible. Among the people, there were various textual traditions, and all of them are represented in Qumran."

A good example is the story of Nahash the Ammonite. In 1 Samuel, Chapter 10, the final verse (27) is: "But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought him no presents. But he held his peace." Immediately thereafter, in Chapter 11:1, it says: "Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh-Gilead." The formulation in the Septuagint translation is similar, except that instead of "But he held his peace," it says: "And it came to pass after about a month." If in the Masoretic version, the transition seems truncated, according to the Septuagint version, causal connection is established: They despised Nahash the Ammonite and brought him no presents, and after about a month, he went to Jabesh-Gilead.

The verse in the Septuagint is more similar to the verse that appears in the scroll of 1 Samuel that was found at Qumran, which says: "And it was like unto a month."

 

Brian you assume there was a break in translations where there is none!... Yes I'll say it was!... Out of it came the KJV and does the publication make the other one of no value since it was from it!... No they are both the Word of God. The English Hexapla shows all the versions that brought about the KJV... John Wycliffe(1380)... William Tyndale(1526)... Cranmers(1539)... The Geneva Bible(1557)... The Anglo-Rhemish(1582)... all ancestors of the KJV!... I stand firm in my conviction and will add that what we read does not determine our eternal destination... No matter what anyone says!

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me... Brother Glen

 

Tyndale is different from the KJV. But why was the KJV produced, if they already had the word of God?[BrianT]

"Aren't you different from your ancestors???

 

Don't you know I was born in 1611 and I am exactly as God wants me to be, so there must be no new versions of myself?

 

Don't you know I was born in 1611 and I am exactly as God wants me to be, so there must be no new versions of myself?[CC]

Hi,Cy! My you're a smart-one, ain't ya??? Must be all that thar maturity showing Anyhoo-how do I know just from some of y'all's comments that satan's trembling? 'Cause he's pulling out all stops, that's how...ya see, he too, knows that the KJBible is The Word of God we're to use today & that's why he's working overtime, bigtime!

When my son-in-law wants to plant pure cotton seed, he don't go buy none of them seconds...And his crop stays pure. A man with them pure-bred cattle, don't go breeding them with scrub cows. The point being: whatever the KJBible was taken from was pure. Whoever God had to do it were His chosen. In other words, the KJV came from pure stock! Now why can't a bright young nice-looking fellar like yourself understand this?

[ July 13, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

Saw this link from another board so I decided to take a look. When I noticed a Primitive Baptist here I decided to go ahead and join. I am Primitive Baptist too.

From my experience, most Primitives are not Onlyists. When a PB says he reads the KJV only means literally that. He means that he feels that the KJV is the best translation and that is the only version he uses. It typically does not mean he buys into the Onlyism (can't speak for everyone, I am sure some do). I think we can agree that the dividing line between Onlyism and true KJV preservation and preference is that Onlyism says that all other versions are devil's books. I think you will find that most PBs don't share that idea.

Primitive Baptist will say that the KJV is the best translation and that is the "only" version that they use...but that isn't Onlyism. PBs will say that they don't like the other versions, the other versions are weaker, poorer, or doctrinally watered down (sometimes saying it more colorfully) but they typically don't cross that line to say that all modern versions are satanically inspired as Onlyists do. This opinion of saying KJV is best is no worst than a MVer saying the KJV is a "poor read."

Now there are "versions" out there that are so bad that they are not even versions anymore. I think MVers would agree. Of course, I am not speaking of or refering to those so called translations but the main stream conservative translations that are out there.

A Primitive Baptist Church does use the KJV as the standard in church and there is nothing wrong with that. People should be reading out of the same hymn book. This standard is mainly out of prudence and for order and, of course, the common preference of the members. Primitive Baptists are very cautious on what ideas they let in the church. That's one thing I like about them. It is a simple faith and worship without "modern intrusions" (include extremist Onlyist views) that are so prevalent today in churches. Primitive Baptist are hard-heads (and sometimes that hard-headness backfires on us(particularly in evangelism)), but I personally would say they are the most doctrinally sound in all of Christendom. If I thought otherwise I wouldn’t be one them.

Stevie

[ July 13, 2002, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

I never so much heard of "onlyism" until coming on Board here...WOW, the things a granny learns! I have always had a KJBible & to me, it is THE Bible. Around the 70's, I think, there was someone who kept telling me about her Living Bible. I told her, yeah, mine is alive too, not realizing what she was meaning until much later...Ain't that funny?

When someone hands me a Pepsi or RC cola, I say, you wouldn't happen to have a short Coca-Cola in a bottle, would ya? They say no, so I'll drink whatever they handed me...Not so with the Word of God. If I should be caught somewhere without it, & there is Scripture reading, & someone hands me another "brand", I politely turn it down. I guess that makes me an "onlyism", huh? Ah~such a thing!

 

Here is a nit.

People who claim the 1611 KJV really don't if they spell Our wonderful Lord's name "Jesus" because the 1611 KJV spells it "Iesus".

So, if you spell His glorious name "Jesus" then you really support the 1769 version.

I know, "get a life".

HankD

 

Welcome Brother Stevie a fellow Primitive Baptist from Florida... Brother Glen here and you will get to know all the other hardshallers on here in time. What I had to say was taken from the Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage Illinois and the article was by Elder Robert L. Webb titled... History Of The Bible... Why We Use The Authorized King James Version Of The Bible... The article can be found at this website.http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Bible.html

Like I've told all the other brethren here you preach from any other version but the KJV in Little Bethany Church you will be preaching in another church. I know what version has always been in the church and since it is in our Articles of Faith there is no choice to what we use. I've been in the church for 35 years and brethren of the PB's should beware of what version you stand for because as you know being a PB that we are not just talking about any Baptist Church... ALL PB's should understand that without question!... Brother Glen

 

Hello Brian,

I think it is a wonderful example that the perfection, inerrancy, inspiration is in the doctrine, meaning, and purpose and not every "jot and tittle".

Well, that’s a history story... The “Baptists” showed up officially in 1608-1638. They came from the Puritan and Separatist movement. So, the KJV was starting to get accepted in the thirties if I remember correctly (old brain). I have always heard stories from undocumented sources that people loyal to the Geneva bible thought the KJV was “too liberal” (I’m serious .)

Now, the Baptist movement in the 1600's came in two parts; the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. Most Baptists in America can trace their roots to the Particulars.

Well, in America around 1800’s (1832-1834 est. has a several documents) there were disagreements about new movements in money based missionaries, conventions, tracks, and bible societies, etc. The hardliners that were against the movements were still called Particulars or just plain ‘Baptists‘ at the time. Eventually, not long after, they were called Old School or Primitive Baptists.

Those that are Baptist Successionist will say that the Baptists have always existed and were never a part of the reformation. Well, I won’t go there. But I will agree with them that at least in the abstract there has always been folks that were “Baptist-like” in the NT Church; be they Puritans, Separatists, Waldensians or what ever.

So, Puritans and Separatists had the Geneva most likely. The early 1600 Particulars most likely had the Geneva and eventually before the 1600’s ran out the KJV was the bible of choice.

In the 1800's in America; the Primitive Baptists, of course, had the KJV.

I don’t think they (PBs) would change unless a version came out that was a true update of the KJV and/or it’s predecessors and even that would be a very long transformation. Issues like the Johannine Comma will always be an issue with pro-KJV people. I know it is for me. So I would doubt a version from the same source text that most modern versions use would be accepted (groups not necessarily individuals.)

Personally, I find the NSAB (updated) a good translation. But I wouldn't bring it in the pulpit or teach in the church from it because, we as a group have set the KJV standard within the church. Most importantly, I think despite the negatives with the KJV; it is the superior text overall, doctrinal speaking. Of course, that's my opinion. Others may differ.

(AFTERTHOUGHT INSERT : I am not Elder or pastor. The above is just hypothetical. Don't want to be misleading)

I hope this is all the sources...

Baptist Heratige by by Leon McBeth
Baptist Confessions of Faith by Lumpkin
Handbook of Denominations in the US by Mead
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9285/PBAPT.HTM
http://www.baptisthistory.org/facts.htm#Baptist%20Beginnings article by Leon McBeth
http://www.pb.org/

Stevie

[ July 14, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

just a couple of problems w Elder Webb's article:

1. he relies chiefly on SDA don B.G. Wilkinson (and E.G. White only secondarily), who's been shown to be not above lying, particularly about Westcott n Hort, just to get his point across. based on Wilkinson's caricature of history, he takes a TR-only position:
"We do not claim that the King James Version is the only
translation that can be called the inspired word of God, but
rather that the Received Text is the only underlying basis for
any past, present or future New Testament translation that should
be so regarded by Christian people."

check out Wilkinson's lie at: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000341&p=

2. he places the Douay-Rheims in the wrong "stream" of Bibles--as it underlies the KJB, it shd belong in his "Waldensian," Majority stream.

3. sorry, he MISplaces the KJB in the wrong stream, as the KJB's 1Jn 5:7 belongs in the MINORITY stream, the "small one of a very few MSS."

perhaps the PBs ought to awake to why the other Baptists aren't KJB- or TR-only. it's no fun being taken for a ride by the SDA!

[ July 13, 2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]