KJV exclusive

Just wondering, does the "F" stand for fundamental or freewill? I belong to an independent freewill baptist church.

Susan

 

The good old KJV
Yes, that's the book for me!
I stand alone on the Word of God
[edited]

The grand old NIV
God's holy Word for me
I stand alone on the Word of God
[edited]

(Turnabout is fair play.)

[Editor: It certainly is, and you both got edited.]

[ September 06, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Scott,

That is how suttle Satan is. By using these other [bibles], you allow suttle errors or lack of truth, which starts erroding at sound doctrine, and thus starts the ball rolling down the hill.

You may not see it in your family, but as your family carries these [bibles] down the family tree, and start buying and allowing more [deleted] bibles into their families, they stray more and more from sound doctrine.

[Moderator: Last warning. The next time you will be suspended.]

[ September 08, 2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Two things wrong in your rhyme, mate. Tis neither grand nor old. 70's is not old.

Mr. Editor, I could have handled his retort and this group could have handled my comment. You make it look like I cursed or something and I have not yet heard that spit is a cuss word.

Updating the English is not a problem. It is the bogus texts that they use. The NKJV does not make some places any clearer and some even muddier and then they use the silly notes from the other messes. The NIV uses losts of archaic words so if that was their real intent they failed miserably

Archaic Words in the NIV

The revision committee admitted they did not have the expertise to do anything in textual study and the approach used was not very scholarly and the people on the board certainly lacked in a lot of areas and it would be a stretch to even consider Westcott and Hort believers from their own writings. Note also that every mainline denomination that has left the TR has gone majorily Liberal and the SBC is now split since the seminaries bought into the nonsense and even the Consverative side is farmore Liberal than the Founders which they have been clinging to lately.

With the advent of Evolution, Psychiatry, Communism, "Higher" Criticism all in the same period it is easy to see that the Great Apostasy started in the 1800's. Yep, no reason to blame a departure from the TR.

 

I do prefer the KJV, infact that's about all I use but I don't like the term perversion. It reminds me of when Peter was shown the great sheet and was told to rise and eat,when he refuses because the animals were unclean God told him not to call anything he had given unclean. I feel this applies to God's Word as well, when we stand and shout perverse to another translation we somehow believe that God could not prevent error. And I also think we subject ourselves to a good talking to like Peter received.( Doc Cas where are you with that edit brother.)
Murph

[ September 08, 2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Edited because I didn't realize Murphy was posting at the same time making the same point. In a much nicer way than I was, too.

[ September 07, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

???????
Just messing with you. I really admire your posting style. I should try to emulate it more.

I have read the KJV since I was saved over 30 years ago. No way I could change now. It makes complete sense to me and I couldn't quote verses from memory if I were to switch.
I don't have a problem with people using other mainline versions. In fact, in most polls I've seen recently, don't most Baptists prefer the ESV?

 

KJV only.... by conviction, believe that any version that teaches Salvation by grace can be used to get saved, but as for me and my house....

 

I do! KJV for Life and eternity!

 

I, for one, do not.

 

No, but they should!

 

Most Liberal Baptists maybe, but the KJV is still the world's best seller in spite of all the MVs. Even in Africa, they mostly use the KJV and English would be an adopted language for them and they do not seem to have so much trouble understanding it then whay should we or is our educational system below third world standards?

 

Someone mentioned the NASB. OK, the NASB is a "truer" translation of the "ancient" texts then Christ is a liar and we cannot trust Him. In John 7 in the NASB, Jesus tells His folks to go up to the feast, but He is not going then a few verses later He goes up. Did He deceive them?

In the KJV, He says He goes not up yet and yet is in the text, but not in the text of the NASB.

Nope, I'll stick with the KJV for this passage if nothing else.

The so-called ancient texts are either the works of beginner scribes or obvious tamperings with the and any translation off of them is bogus no matter if we get it down to 1st grade English.

 

No matter our personal feelings, KJVO is not considered a fundamental of the Christian Faith. I would hate to see a poster here, who had valuable input on a subject, get shunned because they didn't use the KJV for scripture reference.

 

I use a range of versions, including the KJV - but definitely not exclusively.

Maveric, the ESV is no more a "liberal" translation than the KJV is. Also, I don't think I'd be able to provide direct proof, but I have heard from several sources over the years that the NIV has sold more copies in the last 25 years than the KJV has sold in the last 350. As well, we can discuss John 7:8 in the NASB, but I'd rather do it in the Versions/Translation forum.

Thanks, Mr. Curtis for your words, they were much needed. KJVO is definitely not "fundamental" by any stretch of the imagination. Also, I do not mind at all when people prefer the KJV, but animosity towards something that helps bring thousands to Christ and grow in their faith is something I simply cannot comprehend. I don't know where this hostility comes from.

 

No. Why would you think he deceived them? He said he wasn't going, so he stayed in Galilee. Then afterwards he went up. To say that someone is not doing something is not a categorical statement. In this context, it is a statement about that particular moment. It is clear from the context in question that Jesus was telling his disciples to go alone. Afterward they went, apparently several days, then he went, just as the NASB says. There is a textual variant here (ouk vs. oupo). The NASB's reading is strongly supported and there is no reason to doubt it. This is simply a straw man, trying to create a conflict that is not there.

 

If someone tells me they are not going to go somewhere they are not going. If they are not going yet I expect a delay but expect them to arrive. I think there is a difference. Highly supported by what the "minority" texts?

Let's say I am a TRO more so than a KJVO. I don't care if you update the English though I concur that it will lose a lot and be harder to memorize maybe, but that is OK. the texts are the problem. I will have to check out the ESV if it comes from the TR it might be alright, but you used that word liberal in describing it so I am a bit suspicious already. Little good comes from the Left.

I would have to find some more stats on that, but I don't think the NIV has done that. In fact, I haven't seen anyone with a NASB in a long time so I figured that one passed from fad.

I listen to other folks that use other versions. I worked 5 years with a pastor that used the NIV and never again. While I respected him I did tell him that he would apologize for using that version and I would have some things to apologize for as well. I did not consign him to outer darkness but knew that I could not work with another one. Much like Whitfield and Wesley shared a pulpit once and realized that they each had separate fields to work in. Whitfield stopped calling Wesley of the devil but they could not work together.

 

Maverick, the ESV is based on the Critical Text.

 

Thanks for the "concern" but I think there is greater danger in using one translation, from one source text, that has both words and phrasing that is not in our modern vernacular.

[snip] If you don't have a firm grip on today's english then getting the true intended meaning from Elizabethan english is next to impossible... unless of course Elizabethan english is what you normally use.

This statement assumes that MV's are somehow doctrinally impure. The challenge went out before to prove this charge... no one met it by a long shot.

I am not fearful that any doctrinal straying that may occur in my progeny will be the result of MV's. On the contrary, I hope my children will not be gripped by the fear of some pompous legalist and thus not use God's Word in a translation they understand clearly.

There is far less danger of doctrinal error coming from a Bible that one does understand than from a Bible that one thinks he understands but does not.

[ September 09, 2002, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

With all due respect though, what you think is not the issue. What does the text say? That is the issue. There is absolutely no conflict in this passage. The point of the text is that the disciples were to go by themselves without Christ. He came later. I just called my wife and told her I wasn't coming home. Guess what, I will go home tonight. Does that make me a liar? Hardly. In the context, I was right, I am not lying, and I can still go home. This is just a straw man that is easily solved by considering the context.