-
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!
Question about KJV
- Thread starter JRG39402
- Start date
- Status
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I counted from the list in the 3rd post (2ed response)
the translators who died during the translatin or within
5 years of 1611 (i.e. in 1616 or prior). Here is the score:
up through 1616 - 20 36%
1617 or later --- 22 40%
unknown --------- 13 24%
If I were free with my opinions as some doubters of the
New International Version (NIV), I'd think that God punished
quickly over 1/3 of those baby baptizin' Anglican translators.
Probably for persecuting relatively innocent Baptists???
But I'm not doubting the KJV. Yet they are some interesting
numbers.
Salamander: //I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail
to see contextual harmony due to updated definitions that
refuse to include earlier understanding.//
I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail
to see contextual harmony due to pdated definitions that
refuse to include modern understanding.
Furthermore, I'm the guy compliling a data base of commonly misunderstood
KJV-isms.
"God is not the author of CONFUSION". The very context suggests
that confusion = lack of good order among a group. But the saying is often said
to mean a shortness of mental (one person) understanding.
Strangely, it is frequently those who refuse to publish an ORDER
OF SERVICE hoping to wait for the Holy Spirit to 'move' them in His
direction - I.E. it is those (non-Baptists) who lack good order
in their group who misunderstand 'confusion' here.
Phillip: //If God is giving us disharmony today, then the multitude of translations
available in 1611 must have caused confusion then.
Between The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Vulgate,
The Geneva Bible--and on top of that almost ALL of the translation
include the apocrypha. Talk about adding confusion to the reader.//
Yes, all arguments used by supporters of the KJV Only stance were
used at one time Against the KJV. In fact, I'm thinking it was like
the 1690s before the KJV was the best selling Bible in English lands.
Robycop3: //'Tis another typical KJVO wannabee thread...Lotsa rhetoric
by a coupla KJVOs, and NO SCRIPTURE! Can you KJVO advocates
support your claims with SCRIPTURE? If not, your doctrine
has no merit, and as Christians, you should admit it if you
cannot support it with SCRIPTURE.//
Amen, Bro. Robycopy3 - Preach it!
the translators who died during the translatin or within
5 years of 1611 (i.e. in 1616 or prior). Here is the score:
up through 1616 - 20 36%
1617 or later --- 22 40%
unknown --------- 13 24%
If I were free with my opinions as some doubters of the
New International Version (NIV), I'd think that God punished
quickly over 1/3 of those baby baptizin' Anglican translators.
Probably for persecuting relatively innocent Baptists???
But I'm not doubting the KJV. Yet they are some interesting
numbers.
Salamander: //I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail
to see contextual harmony due to updated definitions that
refuse to include earlier understanding.//
I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail
to see contextual harmony due to pdated definitions that
refuse to include modern understanding.
Furthermore, I'm the guy compliling a data base of commonly misunderstood
KJV-isms.
"God is not the author of CONFUSION". The very context suggests
that confusion = lack of good order among a group. But the saying is often said
to mean a shortness of mental (one person) understanding.
Strangely, it is frequently those who refuse to publish an ORDER
OF SERVICE hoping to wait for the Holy Spirit to 'move' them in His
direction - I.E. it is those (non-Baptists) who lack good order
in their group who misunderstand 'confusion' here.
Phillip: //If God is giving us disharmony today, then the multitude of translations
available in 1611 must have caused confusion then.
Between The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Vulgate,
The Geneva Bible--and on top of that almost ALL of the translation
include the apocrypha. Talk about adding confusion to the reader.//
Yes, all arguments used by supporters of the KJV Only stance were
used at one time Against the KJV. In fact, I'm thinking it was like
the 1690s before the KJV was the best selling Bible in English lands.
Robycop3: //'Tis another typical KJVO wannabee thread...Lotsa rhetoric
by a coupla KJVOs, and NO SCRIPTURE! Can you KJVO advocates
support your claims with SCRIPTURE? If not, your doctrine
has no merit, and as Christians, you should admit it if you
cannot support it with SCRIPTURE.//
Amen, Bro. Robycopy3 - Preach it!
How can you use scripture to point a specific Bible is correct? Then all of the Bibles would say they are right.
The point is, if KJV-onlyism isn't taught in Scripture, then KJV-onlyists have no right to make the theological claim that God approves of the KJV any more than any other translation. It is a human tradition with absolutely no authority.
The point is, if KJV-onlyism isn't taught in Scripture, then KJV-onlyists have no right to make the theological claim that God approves of the KJV any more than any other translation. It is a human tradition with absolutely no authority.
You CAN'T...which is my point.
When I ask a KJVO for SCRIPTURE supporting the KJVO myth, it's a rhetorical question. I know there isn't any. That's the main reason I reject the KJVO myth in toto.
Since Scripture is the highest written authority we have, any theory ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture in order to be true. Since there's no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth by the slightest implication, it simply cannot be correct. Saying it IS correct is attempting to place it ABOVE Scripture. That's common sense.
That's not to say it's wrong to use only the KJV through PERSONAL PREFERENCE, but to give any other reason is incorrect, due to that great big bear in the path named "Ascriptural".
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Exactly!!!!!!! Alexandrianism IS ascriptural,and is fueled by emotionalism and sloppy guesswork!
DesiderioDomini
New Member
show me an alexandrianist here, if you would????
Is there anyone here to uses the alexandrian manuscripts exclusively?
really though, dont let facts slow you down.....
Is there anyone here to uses the alexandrian manuscripts exclusively?
really though, dont let facts slow you down.....
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
teehee - "a one-oared boat", kinda goes
in circles, eh?
in circles, eh?
DesiderioDomini
New Member
I found this:
WHY DO CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS HAVE DIFFERENT BIBLES?
Before we answer this question we need to make sure that we understand that the Old Testament existed long before the coming of Christ, and prior to their being a New Testament, the Old Testament was the Bible (that is why what we call the Old Testament the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, because according to them, there is no New Testament).
So the list of books that are contained in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) had to be put together in the same way that the Church had to put together the list of authoritative books that make up the New Testament.
Now, there exists 2 different canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (the Protestant Old Testament) and the Alexandrian Canon (the Catholic Old Testament). The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was written in Hebrew (imagine that) but as the Greek language became the more dominant language a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was created by 70 Jewish scholars between 250-125 B.C. (which is where we get the name Septuagint, Latin for 70).
By the time that Christ was born, Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world and so the Septuagint was very popular. Jesus would have been familiar with the Septuagint, along with the New Testament writers. In fact, the Septuagint was the Old Testament that the New Testament writers used as a reference when they wrote their individual books (any time they quoted the Old Testament it was the Septuagint that they were quoting from).
The Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) contains 46 books, but the Palestinian Canon only contains 39 books. The Palestinian Canon wasn’t put together until 100 A.D. Jewish rabbis rejected 7 of the books that were contained within the Alexandrian Canon (the Septuagint) because they could not find any Hebrew versions of these 7 books which were supposedly translated from Hebrew into Greek. The 7 books are: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch (also parts of Daniel and Esther). And so, by the beginning of the 2nd century, there were 2 different canons of the Old Testament.
The Early Church used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. In fact, when the canon of the entire Bible (the Old and New Testaments) was established at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393-397 A.D. it was the 46 books of the Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) that was accepted as the authoritative list of Old Testament books, not the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon.
This canon of the Old Testament was accepted as the canon for 1500 years, until the Protestant Reformation. In 1529, Martin Luther (the leader of the Protestant Reformation) decided to use the Palestinian Canon (39 books) as his Old Testament canon on the same grounds as the Jewish rabbis in 100 A.D. (that they could find no Hebrew versions of the 7 books in question).
People will often accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible, but as you can see, it was a group of Jewish rabbis who removed books from the Bible in 100 A.D. and Martin Luther who accepted this removal of books and who in fact wanted to remove even more books from the Bible (the New Testament books of James and Revelation). And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.
-Joe Cady
After reading this I starte reading into the Hebrew Old Testament that is talked about above. The Jews held a council late in the first century and denounced the apocrypha and in the same breath they denounced the New Testament as well and added a curse to their daily prayers to anyone that might read anything written by christians.
WHY DO CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS HAVE DIFFERENT BIBLES?
Before we answer this question we need to make sure that we understand that the Old Testament existed long before the coming of Christ, and prior to their being a New Testament, the Old Testament was the Bible (that is why what we call the Old Testament the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, because according to them, there is no New Testament).
So the list of books that are contained in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) had to be put together in the same way that the Church had to put together the list of authoritative books that make up the New Testament.
Now, there exists 2 different canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (the Protestant Old Testament) and the Alexandrian Canon (the Catholic Old Testament). The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was written in Hebrew (imagine that) but as the Greek language became the more dominant language a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was created by 70 Jewish scholars between 250-125 B.C. (which is where we get the name Septuagint, Latin for 70).
By the time that Christ was born, Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world and so the Septuagint was very popular. Jesus would have been familiar with the Septuagint, along with the New Testament writers. In fact, the Septuagint was the Old Testament that the New Testament writers used as a reference when they wrote their individual books (any time they quoted the Old Testament it was the Septuagint that they were quoting from).
The Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) contains 46 books, but the Palestinian Canon only contains 39 books. The Palestinian Canon wasn’t put together until 100 A.D. Jewish rabbis rejected 7 of the books that were contained within the Alexandrian Canon (the Septuagint) because they could not find any Hebrew versions of these 7 books which were supposedly translated from Hebrew into Greek. The 7 books are: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch (also parts of Daniel and Esther). And so, by the beginning of the 2nd century, there were 2 different canons of the Old Testament.
The Early Church used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. In fact, when the canon of the entire Bible (the Old and New Testaments) was established at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393-397 A.D. it was the 46 books of the Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) that was accepted as the authoritative list of Old Testament books, not the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon.
This canon of the Old Testament was accepted as the canon for 1500 years, until the Protestant Reformation. In 1529, Martin Luther (the leader of the Protestant Reformation) decided to use the Palestinian Canon (39 books) as his Old Testament canon on the same grounds as the Jewish rabbis in 100 A.D. (that they could find no Hebrew versions of the 7 books in question).
People will often accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible, but as you can see, it was a group of Jewish rabbis who removed books from the Bible in 100 A.D. and Martin Luther who accepted this removal of books and who in fact wanted to remove even more books from the Bible (the New Testament books of James and Revelation). And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.
-Joe Cady
After reading this I starte reading into the Hebrew Old Testament that is talked about above. The Jews held a council late in the first century and denounced the apocrypha and in the same breath they denounced the New Testament as well and added a curse to their daily prayers to anyone that might read anything written by christians.
So a Roman Catholic apologist is your final authority on the bible?
You claim to be a Baptist but to be quite honest with you I seriously doubt it.
You have been posting your hit-and-run messages for a while now, and I have responded to them pointing out your errors of fact and conclusion but so far you have never replied or acknowledged the rebuttals.
I can't help but think you are a fraud, not a Baptist, and not interested in honest discussion.
If you want an honest discussion I will be glad to point out the factual errors in your cut and paste job, but I will not waste my time if this is just another hit-and-run.
You claim to be a Baptist but to be quite honest with you I seriously doubt it.
You have been posting your hit-and-run messages for a while now, and I have responded to them pointing out your errors of fact and conclusion but so far you have never replied or acknowledged the rebuttals.
I can't help but think you are a fraud, not a Baptist, and not interested in honest discussion.
If you want an honest discussion I will be glad to point out the factual errors in your cut and paste job, but I will not waste my time if this is just another hit-and-run.
william s. correa
New Member
Just use the only one which has worked for over 400 years. AV 1611! thanx and God bless
Hope of Glory
New Member
Well, based on that answer, why not use the one that worked for 1500+ years before that?
DesiderioDomini
New Member
Hope, William will not answer in honesty. Just like every other KJVO, they will not answer any question when the answer throws a kink into their assumption.
I think he has proven that beyond any doubt.
I think he has proven that beyond any doubt.
D-d, you have never brought the answer about the grammatical problem without Johannine Comma, after you promised in that thread, have you?
Without KJV I would have known neither 1 Jn 5:7 as a part of genuine Bible, nor the problem with the Easter in Acts 12:4.
I know KJV contains some errors but it is far better than any other translation. No other version or translation could have been better than KJV.
Without KJV I would have known neither 1 Jn 5:7 as a part of genuine Bible, nor the problem with the Easter in Acts 12:4.
I know KJV contains some errors but it is far better than any other translation. No other version or translation could have been better than KJV.
william s. correa
New Member
Did it work? and if it did why did the RCC keep it from us for so long? Only the Weslyans had the manuscipts that the Emperor Constantine didnt have. God will preserve His Words and We who are saved Know them when we hear them. There is truth in what you are saying but not all of it is truth: Since God preserved His words, man has always failed to listen to that Still Small Voice in their heart which is Still calling sinners to repentance. Thanx and God Bless
- Status