KJVO

Bob Krajcik · Jan 12, 2003

Pastor Bob:

Your paraphrase of the desired opinion of the MV publishers looks to be very accurate. In 1952, the RSV based on the altered Greek, the Alexandrian family, was promoted, saying, "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Yet that RSV was based on a different foundation, not using the same Antiocian family as the KJB but instead the Alexandrian foundation used for all the many new versions frequently appearing today. That claim was untrue then; it is untrue now.

Bob Krajcik

Bob Krajcik · Jan 12, 2003

Author:

You showing you don’t want to offend the KJVO by advancing your version by the use of fair speech is notable. I have some suggestions for you.

You could explain how your version follows the lineage of Jerome's Vulgate, Douay, and Clementine Vulgate and so is in the family of the official version of the Catholic Church. Bruce M. Metzger admits the Greek used by Jerome for the Latin Vulgate, now the official version of the Catholic Church, was the Allexandrian. Jerome had enmity of the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, and that rejection of the Received Text remains the Catholic Church position to this day.

You might note that with your embracing the readings from the family of the Catholic Church, the Alexandrian family, and not the readings of the Reformation, your version puts you on the opposite side of and opposed to the Textus Receptus (Antiocian family), Tyndale's Bible, Luther's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Version.

I haven’t recognized a willingness on the part of other’s that were wanting to advance versions based on the Alexandrian family show a desire to be sensitive to the KJVO. Thanks Author, for expressing how you want to be accurate and not overly offensive to the KJVonly camp(s) while still promoting your version.

Bob Krajcik

Steve K. · Jan 12, 2003

Amen Bob and Bob! The truth still cuts like a knife, or sword for those of us who still understand "old english".

Alcott · Jan 12, 2003

Is that the essence of your posts-- it's the way you yell ouch to being cut?

Steve K. · Jan 12, 2003

I still have a bible that is quick powerful and sharper than any two edged sword .It is the KING JAMES BIBLE and it cuts me all the time.I thank God it does!

Scott J · Jan 13, 2003

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
...the RSV based on the altered Greek, the Alexandrian family...

Of course this claim of "altered" is nothing more than your unfounded opinion... thus negating every conclusion you made in this post.

Siegfried · Jan 13, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
It is simply called having an opinion. It may not be the same as your's; but it is an opinion.

Thank you for clarifying that it is an opinion. You certainly are entitled to it. My point is simply that your opinion is based on your instinct, not on what you hear MV publishers saying.

Regarding the verses I listed, My point, missed by all, is that when one does not understand the Word of God, the best solution is not always to lay it down for an easier to read version. We just may be short-changing the Holy Spirit who delights in guiding us into all truth.

The BEST solution is to remove all obstacles of language by putting Scripture in the language people seek while STILL fervently seeking the help of the Spirit to understand it.

I do reference other versions out of curiousity at times. When they disagree with the KJV, one has to be the standard.

You are mistaken. The originals are the standard. Any manuscripts and translations are only "standards" to the degree that they are consistent with the autographs. Are you saying that the KJV is identical to to the autographs?

AV Defender · Jan 13, 2003

You are mistaken. The originals are the standard.

Is'nt it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

Pastor Larry · Jan 13, 2003

Originally posted by JYD:
Is'nt it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

No, that's myth.

BrianT · Jan 13, 2003

Originally posted by JYD:
Is'nt it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

If it was, then what did they believe in, in 1605?

Siegfried · Jan 13, 2003

Originally posted by BrianT:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JYD:
Is'nt it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

If it was, then what did they believe in, in 1605?[/QUOTE]Or, for that matter, in 1768, just prior to the final revision of the KJV.

Or was it the 1611 that was "perfect," and all succeeding editions were "per-"versions?

Ed Edwards · Jan 13, 2003

On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

Pioneer · Jan 13, 2003

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance. You came to our discussion board knowing our stand on the King James Bible and yet you decided to stir up a little trouble. You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different bible versions trying to prove that they all stated the same thing. In the middle you used King James Bibles from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to make it look like they were all different. The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy as well as your quotes from modern versions. So laugh all you want to because I am banning you from our board.

Bro. Steve Smith

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

Siegfried · Jan 14, 2003

Originally posted by Pioneer:
So laugh all you want to because I am banning you from our board.

Ed,

Just wanted to encourage you to be strong in the face of great loss.

Maverick · Jan 14, 2003

For your perusal. Since you can download it free to listen all should enjoy.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady/Final_Authority.html

Ed Edwards · Jan 16, 2003

Originally posted by Siegfried:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pioneer:
So laugh all you want to because I am banning you from our board.

Ed,
Just wanted to encourage you to be strong in the face of great loss.[/QUOTE]Thank you Siegfried for the uplifting word.
The world of encouragement is always welcome.

Anti-Alexandrian · Jan 16, 2003

Or, for that matter, in 1768, just prior to the final revision of the KJV.

Or was it the 1611 that was "perfect," and all succeeding editions were "per-"versions?

You seem to have the answer to your own question already in your mind....

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

I'm new on this sight so forgive me if I'm off the argument a little. How do you KJVO folks see other churches who use the KJV, but don't subscribe to KJVOism? If they are disobedient to the point of needing to separate from them why do you call yourselves baptists and deny Soul liberty? If they are not disobedient then why all the attacks? Just curious.
reuben

jl wade · Jan 18, 2003

Of all the translations or versions that I have read, the KJV does my heart the most good. It forces me to study and find out what God has for me to learn. It's the oldest English translation I know of; so I have to study just to understand what the old English means!!!
And to be honest;I just don't trust any other translation. Not meaning to be hateful, just stating my position.
Jeff Wade

Keith M · Jan 18, 2003

If you would like the chance to compare some really old Bible versions, check out StudyLight.com where you can look at online versions of The Latin Vulgate (425 AD), The Wycliffe Bible (1395 AD), The Tyndale New Testament (1525 AD), and The Geneva Bible (1587 AD). Now if you think the KJV we use these days is hard to read, just look at these versions. The three English versions really show some changes in the language...

...and no matter what anyone says, the KJV that is used today IS NOT the original of 1611...

[ January 18, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Keith M ]

KJVO

New Member

New Member

Steve K.

Guest

Well-Known Member

Steve K.

Guest

Active Member

Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Pioneer

Guest

Member

Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member