KJV and the Fundamentalist Forum

Amen Brother, well said.
Murph

 

Take me for example. I am a Fundamental Baptist in every sense of the word, yet my most often used Bible translation is not the KJV. It's the Karolyi translation.

[ September 09, 2002, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: webmaster ]

 

Amen and well said...especially the part about the Gators!

...and to take off on your methods a little... Out, like Ron Zook.

 

Not to be disrespectful, but doesn't the board have a disclaimer that says if you can't be challenged get out of the pool?

I can't remember anyone doing any of those specific things but then I do try and attack the issue rather than personages albeit Liberal is a dirty word to me, but I do not who is who on here for sure except for a couple of folks. I have suspicions about some, but I have never said the Mr. ED from KY was a moron or a Liberal or anything like that. I guess I get so wrapped up in the issue I block out that stuff. I usually tell folks that I have been insulted by the rest and there ain't nothin' to the rest.

Shoot, I have even used some the slurs hurled at me and fundies in my own posts about me because I laugh about them. Maybe y'all can figure a way to dispense some virtual chocolate covered prozac.

 

Thank you. I stand for the fundamentals of the faith, but I no longer use the KJV exclusively. The church my wife and I are in uses the NIV, and some use the NASB there. We were both raised using the KJV, and we love it. We also love the NIV and NASB and have seen many come to Christ through their use. I thank the Lord that one can still be fundamental and have a choice.

 

Are you saying that my english KJV Bible isn't the inspired text?

Out like bad sarcasm on a monday.

 

Thats well and fine, but some take it so far as too say or act as if the person not using the KJ is less spiritual, less devoted to God. The person using the KJ is no more spiritual or correct hten the one using something else.

 

You mean I could be a fundamentalist and use an niv? It just seems odd...

[ September 13, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

I still haven't figured out what some of you have against the KJV?

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Susan

 

They have nothing against the KJV. What they complain about is what everybody else has agaist the NASB.

 

Susanpet I love the KJV and I use it 99and44/100% of the time. What I disagree with is the KJVO group who in opinion cause division. Once I was asked to attend a bible study to see if I approved of the teacher. One of my members had been attending this study at a friends home so I was happy to go. the teacher was a retired independant Pastor and he did a wonderful job, I couldn't figure out why my member wanted him checked out until the conversation turned to kjvo. I held up my KJV and said as you can see I read the Kjv but I want you to tell me why it is the only Bible. He spoke for a few minutes on it's merits and finally made his major point on the fact that America was God's country because of their use of the kjv. Being a smart eleck like I am I said so your point is that if the KJV was good enough for the pilgrims on the mayflower it is good enough for you right? He said Amen brother that is exactly right, I left without correcting him or apologizing for my stunt.
Murph

 

What Bible did the Pilgrims use, the Geneva?

Eric (trying to overcome his ignorance

 

Yes, they used the Geneva Bible, and considered it the very word of God in English. As do I.

 

Doc, where can a person aquire a geneva Bible?
Murph

 

I wonder why? Let's see they were strong Calvinists and Geneva just so happened to eb the stomping grounds of Calvin. Go figure. I suspect their preference was more due to the person of Calvin than textual issues.

There really are too many forums where the same subjects get addressed again and again so since it is fitting for the KJVO issue here I will post what I just posted in the translation area.

There are differences in KJVOs. Most of what it sounds like you have been up against in the past are followers of Peter Ruckman, who do hold that the KJV translators were inspired (double inspiration) and that we no longer need the Greek or Hebrew texts since we have the English translation.

Again, as Doc Cas has put it the real question is the texts that the MVs use. There were over 50,000 texts used for the KJV and these texts varied very little from each other. They are also called the majority texts. The MVs use,if I recall correctly, only 1500 texts that and the only thing consistent about these texts are that they disagree on virtually everything.
That is why some marginal notes in some versions will say the "ancient texts leave this
out" while another might say that they leave this in. Depends on which one you use and
hence brings about confusion of which God is not the author.

The only reason that they are considered so special by the "scholars" is that they are older than the majority texts. Big deal. Older is not necessarily better.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep
the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (KJV)

Folks were already twisting the Word and even John spoke of people going out from the Church. I John 2:18,19 They were called antiChrists. Paul spoke of folks saying the
resurrection was already past or that there is no resurrection at all. Does it take a rocket
scientist to think that these folks did not have copies of the Scripture that they would
revise as they saw fit to strengthen their position? After all, one group came out of
Alexandria where Origen, who had 7 plans of salvation,hung out and he is the
great-granddaddy of the JWs, who by the way took the KJV and edited it to their own end
as did the Joseph Smith. Another came out of the Vatican and they were not noted for
their respect for Scripture nor for their veracity then or now since we can hide the truth
about child molesters and hold priest's reputation more value than the life of a child. Since
the majority of the believers would have rejected these manuscripts and paid even closer
attention to the copies they made and received is it any wonder that these minority texts
survived since they were not used as much and had less wear and tear? The majority
would speak to what the church has held not the minority texts.
Indeed some of them might be just new scribe trainee errors that got thrown in the back
of a pile and hence survived not because they were right but because someone forgot
about them and did not dispose of them. One group was found on the trash heap fixin' to
be burned. Duh, maybe because they were in error! One is so blantantly a tampered or
revised version that it leaves space for all the so-called disputed versions. I would appear
that a scribe with some honor copied it per the customer's wishes but left the spaces so
that his name would not be besmirched as a poor copyist should someonesee it. These
are far more logical scenarios than a contrived Lucian reclension that has no basis for fact
but only a fantasy of a man that was most likely unsaved by his own writings. He and his
cohort managed to bully a bunch of men who had already written that they had no
qualifications to do "higher criticism", but were only there to fix typos and update some
English like taking eth off of gieth and taketh. Therefore unqualified men exalted obviously
bogus minority texts because of age worship and the fact that the whole time was an age
of scepticism resulting in communism, evolution, a bad translatiion and later psychiatry.

So, the MVs have a rotten root so the fruit cannot be any good.

Now, take the KJV and take the eth off things and update licentious and you will have
what the revision folks of 1881 were supposed to do and it would have been an
acceptable translation. Besides Eric, that old bore about Elizabethean English is worn thin.
Ever read Shakespeare. Try changing the English around a real Shakepearean actor and
he might tell you to be out, out damn spot. If Africans can use the KJV just fine, a fine
educated young American lad like you should do just fine.

Sadly, I don't know if I trust anyone in this age (even fundamentalists) to do a complete retranslation of the KJV so just doing what I said before is all that should be done. Too many axes to grind and halos to shine to get a really good one. Admittedly, the KJV lads
chose to keep their heads and transliterated baptizo, but at least they did not change the
text to read sprinkle or pour. I am not sure anyone today would be that honest even
though they had to sword to worry about. We are in an age of apostasy that started
strangely enough in the late 1800s and every denomination that has switched to
something other than the KJV has dwindled and became exceedingly Liberal. I see a nice
correlation there. We see this happening in the SBC. Even the Conservatives are not as
Conservative as they were in the 50's and they have started used the MVs as well. One
lad I heard was having a MV marathon in his sermon as he used four or five. When the
Independents switch to the MVs you will see the same thing. For supposedly not having
anything signifcantly changed,it is odd how the MVs have helped bring about great
doctrinal changes amongst their users.

I am a TRO and the only relaible version from the TR I have seen and believe will ever see is the KJV and in that respect I am also KJVO.

 

here, here, here,
here, here,
here, here, etc.

Interesting quote from the second link: "It is an important text in the history of the English Bible as it predates the KJV which was seen by the Protestants as a "liberal" Bible when it was first produced..."

 

Pioneer, I am not sure where you are getting your information but it could not be more wrong. You say there are 50,000 texts underlying the KJV and 1500 underlying the MVs. Actually, there is one textform underlying most of the modern versions, and one textform underlying the KJV.

There are two other minor textforms which most scholars now consider to be combinations of the above two.

Those textforms are supported by about 5,255 Greek manuscripts of which about 5,200 give evidence to the textform underlying the KJV and about 55 give evidence to the textform underlying most modern versions.