-
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!
KJVonly v only KJV
- Thread starter gopchad
- Start date
Pastor KevinR
New Member
actually, I'm a "Majority/Traditional Text" preferred kinda man, and I view the Alexandrian family, namely B and Aleph as inferior. Since these are relatively new discoveries, I can almost see an extreme KJVO calling this our "Advanced Revelation", i.e. those who reject the KJVO view.Originally posted by av1611jim:
The trouble with your statement Pastor KevinR is that there is at least an 1800 year history as to WHAT is the ORIGINAL text!
So WHICH is it for you? Mine is the Bysantine(sp) (Syrian) text of Antioch. I would assume by your comments that your's is the ALEXANDRIAN text of the heretic Origen? And he WAS an heretic. But if not then my apologies. MANY on this board would however, hold to the exact text of W/H which is of Origen origins. (Like that play on words...Origen-origin?)
In HIs service;
Jim
Pastor KevinR
New Member
...of course I realize these MSS are older, yet their discovery is what's "new"
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Somewhere between one and a zillion!
The Word of God can still be found in the very same place as the AV translators found them; the Originals, and the former translations diligently compared and revised. If the Originals were good enough for the KJV translators, they're good enough for me! </font>[/QUOTE]The originals would be good enough for us all, but there are no originals, only copies of copies of copies of originals. Pray tell me where I, you, or anyone on the entire planet can get hold of an original manuscript and we'll get the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars in the world to translate for us. But when we do, should we require them to translate into a dialect of the English language nobody uses today? Or might it be wise to translate into a dialect we can all understand, such as eighth grade reading level newspaper English. (This is not meant to be an insult to anyone. I read somewhere that a good newspaper editor will see to it that news stories are written at this level so all who read can understand.)
Fact regarding the history of english translations do seem to be intentionally ignored by KJO types. I can see why. Facts destroy the KJO doctrine. The texts used by the KJ translators in 1611 were good, and the KJ is a very good translation. But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts. If there ever was a matter of men putting their traditions ahead of an honest search for accuracy, it is exemplified by the KJO crowd.
So I have fallen into an absolutely meaningless and rediculous debate, and even contributed a little. Now I think I'll go spend an hour with my RSV, NASV, NEV, TEV, and NIV and thank God for the scholars who made these magnificent translations available.
Dave </font>[/QUOTE]besides yesterday's post, I haven't posted in a little while, but I am not KJVO! I used to be KJVO, but I have escaped. I do strongly prefer versions that are based on the Majority/Traditional Text, and therefore I use the NKJV to preach/teach. That's my 3 cents (inflation, ya know
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Allow me to put my 3.1 cents in(inflation just went up another notch)
The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus, it says that because they want you to think that it is just the "5th revision" of the KJV. Actually it relies on the same corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts the other versions do.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper
The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus, it says that because they want you to think that it is just the "5th revision" of the KJV. Actually it relies on the same corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts the other versions do.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper
Where is the actual, consistent documented evidence for your accusation? Do you ignore the
evidence of the many verses where the NKJV is closer to the KJV than the KJV is to some of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']
of which it was a revision? Is it possible that
all the differences between the KJV and NKJV simply involve a difference of opinions concerning how to translate most accurately the same underlying texts?
WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.
I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame."
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Thank you Richard. Older does not neccessarily mean better. But a fourth century manuscript is "probably" more reliable than an 11th century manuscript. I should have qualified my remark.Originally posted by Bible Student:
DavidFWhite3
Said:
"But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts."
I have stated before that just becuse something is "older" it is not "more reliable" or "better". That is an opinion not fact.
Richard
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.
I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame." </font>[/QUOTE]You must base your arguement on lies when you have no truth behind you.
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Perhaps a definition of logical fallacy would help, for this is a perfect example of a logical falacy. The Bible as we have it is sufficient. It does not have to be perfect for God to be perfect. If we read it we will find Jesus and He is the Perfect Word of God, quite capable of saving all of us with or without a perfect book.Originally posted by Bible Student:
LRL71
Said:
"Only the original manuscripts-- of which there are none surviving-- can boast being both inspired and inerrant. Therefore, since we have copies of manuscripts with errors in them, we do not have a Bible today that is 'perfect'."
Then what do you have to offer me? If you can not produce the whole truth about God, I question if you can product any truth about God. I do not want the best you can give me, I want the whole truth. If you can not, I have better things to do with my life. The Mormons also tell me they have the Book of Mormons, but you say it is a lie. They can not produce the orginials to prove it, and you say you cannot produce the orginals to prove your Bible and I see no difference in the argument. The final conclusion is we have no reliable Word of God today because the copies have errors.
Richard
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
I just find it most perplexing that probably EVERY one of us here would confess and profess to believe in a Holy Supernatural PERFECT God Who created this entire universe by the Word of His mouth...but yet...when it comes to His Holy Word...which even HE SAYS He 'MAGNIFIES ABOVE HIS OWN NAME',we'll back off and hold it to a lesser standard and say that it doesn't 'have to be PERFECT' to be His Word.The original textual critic started the ball rolling back in the book of Genesis by asking the question,"Yea,hath God said....?"Ya'll can argue all you want...I'll stick with the one book that has always provided me with the peace and guidance that is a comfort to my soul.The PARADOX of all this is that our PERFECT God has ALWAYS used IMPERFECT MEN to perform His PERFECT work,and that would also include penning,transcribing,producing,and in our day printing and distributing His Perfect WORD.Bless His Holy Name!"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."God Bless You All...carry on!
Greg Sr.
Bible Student
New Member
DavidFWhite3,
First let me thank you for the honest debate without degrading coments.
I understand what you are saying, My only point is this. From my point of view, which is completely by faith, is that I have a God who is all powerful. He made the Red Sea part, shut the mouths of the lions, translated Enoch, destoryed the world by flood, and this same God can and will preserve His Word. Yes I do believe he can do it for me and the rest of the world.
In this discussion I do not care if you believe in the NKJV, NIV, or the KJV, you must believe you have the entire preserved word of God or you have nothing.
Yes I am a simple believer, and before some of you start with your education stuff as I have seen before, I have a BS in Technology, Masters of Theology and am working on my MBA. But, my belief does not have to have man made educational proof, I was saved by faith and I will live by faith, to include believing that my God can and will give me His very Word.
I will answer the devil just as my savior did, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." I have that "every word."
Richard
First let me thank you for the honest debate without degrading coments.
I understand what you are saying, My only point is this. From my point of view, which is completely by faith, is that I have a God who is all powerful. He made the Red Sea part, shut the mouths of the lions, translated Enoch, destoryed the world by flood, and this same God can and will preserve His Word. Yes I do believe he can do it for me and the rest of the world.
In this discussion I do not care if you believe in the NKJV, NIV, or the KJV, you must believe you have the entire preserved word of God or you have nothing.
Yes I am a simple believer, and before some of you start with your education stuff as I have seen before, I have a BS in Technology, Masters of Theology and am working on my MBA. But, my belief does not have to have man made educational proof, I was saved by faith and I will live by faith, to include believing that my God can and will give me His very Word.
I will answer the devil just as my savior did, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." I have that "every word."
Richard
Mr. Perry,
"Magnified ABOVE His own name" is another mistranslation. It SHOULD be, "magnified ALONG WITH His own name" as later versions correctly read. Don't believe me? Just copy the Hebrew for that verse & take it to anyone you know who's proficient in Hebrew. Most likely, there's a synagogue you can easily contact.
"Magnified ABOVE His own name" is another mistranslation. It SHOULD be, "magnified ALONG WITH His own name" as later versions correctly read. Don't believe me? Just copy the Hebrew for that verse & take it to anyone you know who's proficient in Hebrew. Most likely, there's a synagogue you can easily contact.
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Thank you.Originally posted by Bible Student:
DavidFWhite3,
First let me thank you for the honest debate without degrading coments.
I understand what you are saying, My only point is this. From my point of view, which is completely by faith, is that I have a God who is all powerful. He made the Red Sea part, shut the mouths of the lions, translated Enoch, destoryed the world by flood, and this same God can and will preserve His Word. Yes I do believe he can do it for me and the rest of the world.
In this discussion I do not care if you believe in the NKJV, NIV, or the KJV, you must believe you have the entire preserved word of God or you have nothing.
Yes I am a simple believer, and before some of you start with your education stuff as I have seen before, I have a BS in Technology, Masters of Theology and am working on my MBA. But, my belief does not have to have man made educational proof, I was saved by faith and I will live by faith, to include believing that my God can and will give me His very Word.
I will answer the devil just as my savior did, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." I have that "every word."
Richard
Again, I am saying the Bible is all sufficient. It is all we need.
It will teach us about God, about us, about the issues of life that matter, but the Bible Is Not God and all you have to do is read it with an open mind and you will see it does not support the Doctrine of Inerrancy, if we mean by inerrancy that it is absolutely without error in all fields of knowledge. It is not totally consistent in all matters of Doctrine, but more than consistent in the ones that really matter. It is not without some inconsistencies, but they do not invalidate its overall message.
The plain fact is there are millions of true Christians, who strongly believe in Jesus and work to do God's will as it is revealed in Jesus who do not accept the manmade doctrine of a perfect book being neccessary to know and love a perfect God. That in itself is evidence enough.
Again I point out just one example and it is found it Genesis Chapters 1-2. The text says without any ambiguity in chapter one that the animals are made before the man, and the man and the woman are made last. The text of chapter 2 says without any ambiguity that the animals are made after the man. In fact it also says in chapter 2 that the plants weren't even made yet because there was no man to till the soil (vs.5).
Chapter2:18-21 has to be made to say what it does not say in order to fit into the chronology of Chapter one. And there are many who contribute to this board who are very good at rewriting the text in order to make it fit into their doctrinal positions. They are actually afraid to accept what they are reading. The original editors of the biblical texts saw no need to force this issue, so why should we? If the text will not allow us to interpret literally, we must find the interpretation that teaches us what God want us to learn from it, and that is what I try to do.
Dave
WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.
I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame." </font>[/QUOTE]I hate to be the little uneducated guy who has to correct you big scholars on this, but it is a HALF-LIE not a Full-LIE.
After all at least the First half is NOT from the Textus Receptus.
You're ALL WRONG!