• 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!

KJV only??

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
C4K said:
And both of these are opinions, as neither has any real substantial proof.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense Roger. You can't play middle-of-the-road here. That would leave you with a position that the CT deleted some verses and the RT added some verses. IOW,it all comes out in the wash.

It's one or the other --either the RT added a number of passages not found in the originals,or the CT deleted a number of verses that were actually in the originals.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Rippon said:
That doesn't make any sense Roger. You can't play middle-of-the-road here. That would leave you with a position that the CT deleted some verses and the RT added some verses. IOW,it all comes out in the wash.

It's one or the other --either the RT added a number of passages not found in the originals,or the CT deleted a number of verses that were actually in the originals.
Click to expand...

I have my opinion, I just don't have any proof and I can see some points from the other side. I just don't know, and in reality neither does anyone else. That is why I think we err when we are overly critical about either text body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
C4K said:
I have my opinion, I just don't have any proof and I can see some points from the other side. I just don't know, and in reality neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

Ultimately one side is right,and the other stance is wrong. One can't maintain a neutral stance. That's like saying the contractictory statements that :1)Christ died for each and every person who has and shall live and 2) Christ died only for His elect ones. Both statements cannot be true.One is false,and the other true.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Rippon said:
Both statements cannot be true.One is false,and the other true.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, but I don't understand the need to choose a side based on my research an opinion. I have made a choice, but have no proof I am right since neither text body addresses the issue.

It is more like much of eschatology, I have adopted a view, but my faith will not be shaken if I am wrong.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Rippon said:
Ultimately one side is right,and the other stance is wrong. One can't maintain a neutral stance.
Click to expand...

But since 'to err is human and to forgive is Divine' perhaps we should recognize that WE all might be wrong, and there is an entirely different perspective that we cannot see on this side, but the Father does.

I think it is foolish to make these value judgments when we do not have the facts, Scripturally or otherwise, upon which to base them.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Rippon said:
That doesn't make any sense Roger. You can't play middle-of-the-road here. That would leave you with a position that the CT deleted some verses and the RT added some verses. IOW,it all comes out in the wash.

It's one or the other --either the RT added a number of passages not found in the originals,or the CT deleted a number of verses that were actually in the originals.
Click to expand...

Just curious, as to IF there is such a large discrepency between the CT and the MT ?
 
J

jbh28

Active Member
Neither the CT is 100% perfect nor the TR is 100% perfect. I believe that the CT is much closer and that's the text that I believe is best. There are probably places where the CT has something that's "missing" and the TR has it. There are also probably places that the TR "added" something and the CT has it correct. Again, I believe the CT is closer, but I'm not going to say that one is perfect with 100% certainty.

With that being said, let me clear something. I believe 100% of the words have been preserved. Just because one text chooses the wrong one doesn't mean that the words have been lost. The Bible was preserved long before the TR's were ever made and long before the CT's were ever made. The Word of the Lord will stand forever.
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
FYI, I watched a newly released movie/documentary on the King James Bible last night. It was called "The KJB, the book that changed the world". It was narrated by John Ries Davies and included a lot of acting as well as information. It was very good and I wonder if anyone else has seen it? You might think about it if not.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Amy.G said:
FYI, I watched a newly released movie/documentary on the King James Bible last night. It was called "The KJB, the book that changed the world". It was narrated by John Ries Davies and included a lot of acting as well as information. It was very good and I wonder if anyone else has seen it? You might think about it if not.
Click to expand...

Do you know of a source for it?
 
menageriekeeper

menageriekeeper

Active Member
Rippon said:
That doesn't make any sense Roger. You can't play middle-of-the-road here. That would leave you with a position that the CT deleted some verses and the RT added some verses. IOW,it all comes out in the wash.

It's one or the other --either the RT added a number of passages not found in the originals,or the CT deleted a number of verses that were actually in the originals.
Click to expand...

OR there could be a third option: That neither copy is based on "the originals", but on bits and pieces of the "originals" along with the oral traditions passed from one generation to another.

People worry to much about word counts. It should be enough that we even have these very early manuscripts to refer back to, to retranslate as languages change and to compare to each other so we have access to the best translations possible. If these weren't/aren't sufficient, God would surely have seen to it we had a better source.
 
J

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
Amen to what menageriekeeper said above. We don't know what the originals recorded, and we are not even certain about which documents the Romanist copied are valid to the originals.

Cheers,

Jim
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
menageriekeeper said:
OR there could be a third option: That neither copy is based on "the originals", but on bits and pieces of the "originals" along with the oral traditions passed from one generation to another.

People worry to much about word counts. It should be enough that we even have these very early manuscripts to refer back to, to retranslate as languages change and to compare to each other so we have access to the best translations possible. If these weren't/aren't sufficient, God would surely have seen to it we had a better source.
Click to expand...

again, regardless if one chooses to use as their base CT/MT, that one will stay have the "word of God" for today?

That we spend time and effort discussing IF one should do that greek text or this one, but bottom line, isn't the translation made still word of God and infallible?
regardless IF NIV/Nasv/ESv/NKJV etc?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top