-
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!
"KJVO" Beginnings
- Thread starter Mongol Servant
- Start date
- Status
No one did that at TTU in the 1970's. And "deterioration" and "abandonment" still mean different things.Askjo said:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
It is unfortunate that this thread has become a vehicle for misinformation.
Lets return to the topic or close the thread please.
Lets return to the topic or close the thread please.
Jarthur001
Active Member
C4K said:
I have not read every post in the thread. I do agree with John and others about the beginning, for I too lived through it. I agree with them, other then one key point.
In the beginning the KJV was defended based on the TR. It was the line of Greek text from which the KJV came from, was what the debate was over. As a matter of fact, most out spoken defenders in the early days, held to two versions as good versions. The KJV and the Greek-English Bible...both based on the TR.
In the 70s and part of the 80s I keep up with the debate. The last part of the 80s and into the 90s I never read much more on it, thinking I had read it all.
Sometime around 98-99 I read something’s about the debate that I thought were kinda off the wall. The writers were saying things that lead me to believe the writers were nearly worshipping a version. When I came across it again, I looked into it, and field had indeed changed and the battle had now gone to a version not the Greek.
Now we have people saying that the KJV is to be placed above the TR greek, which I will never understand that logic. If the TR is the only pure Greek line, and was right all these years, then when the KJV comes, why can the TR no longer be trusted?
Actually “The Beginnings” of KJVO go back to 1611.
Concerning which, the translators of the AV tried to “nip it in the bud” with the following three statements (and if they were taken at face value there would be no KJVO).
1) Inspiration is derived from the original languages:
“…That ‘as the credit of the old Books" (he meaneth of the Old Testament)’ is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue," he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles…”
2) All translations are the “Word of God”:
“…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God…”
3) The proliferation of translations is a good thing:
“…. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded…”
Most modern KJV Bibles do not include the Preface and how many folks would read it even if it were present.
HankD
Concerning which, the translators of the AV tried to “nip it in the bud” with the following three statements (and if they were taken at face value there would be no KJVO).
1) Inspiration is derived from the original languages:
“…That ‘as the credit of the old Books" (he meaneth of the Old Testament)’ is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue," he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles…”
2) All translations are the “Word of God”:
“…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God…”
3) The proliferation of translations is a good thing:
“…. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded…”
Most modern KJV Bibles do not include the Preface and how many folks would read it even if it were present.
HankD
Good points, Hank; the AV men weren't against other English translations at all. In fact, they followed the Tyndale & the Bishop's translations largely.
The British ban on the printing/sale of any other English versions within the realm was a power play & had nothing to do with any religious issues.
While I believe Mongol was interested in the current KJVO doctrine, the writings of the AV translators should certainly be considered. Perhaps if those opinions had been known to more Christians in the 20th century, the current KJVO thingie might notta made it to 1st base.
The British ban on the printing/sale of any other English versions within the realm was a power play & had nothing to do with any religious issues.
While I believe Mongol was interested in the current KJVO doctrine, the writings of the AV translators should certainly be considered. Perhaps if those opinions had been known to more Christians in the 20th century, the current KJVO thingie might notta made it to 1st base.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
A point worth remembering is that the KJV translators had the equivalent of Aleph and B readings available to them through the work of Erasmus, but chose not to accept them. I am fairly certain if it were possible to ask them about a version based upon the very readings they themselves rejected, they would feel very much the same as the modern day TR only crowd. Just my opinion, of course.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Askjo,
You are accusing godly men of TTU of abandoning the faith in the 70s. I hope you have more documentation than David Cloud. In fact, I would like to see your documentation for that claim.
There was no abandoning of the faith at TTU in the 70s. Some of us were there are the time. We don't need websites or history books to tell us what happened.
Could you please show us where, as a part of the KJVO movement, these men abandoned the faith.
If you can't, would be be gentleman enough to withdraw your charges?
You are accusing godly men of TTU of abandoning the faith in the 70s. I hope you have more documentation than David Cloud. In fact, I would like to see your documentation for that claim.
There was no abandoning of the faith at TTU in the 70s. Some of us were there are the time. We don't need websites or history books to tell us what happened.
Could you please show us where, as a part of the KJVO movement, these men abandoned the faith.
If you can't, would be be gentleman enough to withdraw your charges?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Brother Pastor_Bob: //A point worth remembering is that
the KJV translators had the equivalent of Aleph and B
readings available to them through the work of Erasmus,
but chose not to accept them.//
Actually, in the past here, there is some pretty hard evidence
that the KJV Translators used Erasmus in a couple of
places where the Majority Text (MTs) varied or were
unavailable.
the KJV translators had the equivalent of Aleph and B
readings available to them through the work of Erasmus,
but chose not to accept them.//
Actually, in the past here, there is some pretty hard evidence
that the KJV Translators used Erasmus in a couple of
places where the Majority Text (MTs) varied or were
unavailable.
Let me see, is that what I'm saying? Yep! :thumbs:Askjo said:
Cloud still has inaccurate information on his website about the Bible translation situation in Japan. I e-mailed him years ago about it and he said he would, but never did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me get this straight. You asked me, "Are you saying that David Cloud is wrong?" Then I reply with yes I am, and show where Cloud was provably wrong in another matter to back up what I am saying. Then you say you do not care about inaccurate information in his website? "Hoo boy," as a Pogo character used to say.:laugh:Askjo said:
I quoted you in full.- Status