I still say the question is irrelevant. The MV's use the critical text and the KJV uses the Recieved text and therein lies the difference. Give me a good translation of the TR and that's what I will use. The issue boils down to preservation. Did God keep His promise to preserve His word or not? If He did where is the English translation for the generations from 1611 to 1881 if it is not the KJV?
-
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 for users of the KJV
- Thread starter AVL1984
- Start date
Originally posted by BrianT
Maybe you didn't understand what I said. Prior to 1611 the Word of God was where it still is today- in the Textus Receptus. Some people have tried to make this into King James Onlyism. That term does not apply to those of us who beleive the preserved Word of God is in the TR. The differences between the TR and the Critical Text are substantial. The issue really boils down to whether God kept His promise and preserved His Word in the TR as we believe or whether it is up to man to try to "restore" God's Word through the Critical Text. If the latter is the case it puts man in the position of final authority over God's Word- a position which we don't belong in.
I basically understood what you meant. But naming the TR instead of the KJV doesn't really change the point, it just bumps the question back about 80 years. And it also adds the complication of "which TR?" because there were several editions, all slightly different.
Isn't this in a sense what the TR attempted to do: "restore" God's word through a Greek New Testament, later called the TR?
What?!!???!!! This is a ridiculous question. Meant to make KJVers look like cultists.
The KJV has been around for a while, I'm sure that God will find a way to keep the KJV here for the folks like me who prefer it.
If it was ever outlawed, then I would consider it worth dying for.
Pete Richert
New Member
First off, it would appear that many don't know that the TR itself was put together by a few manuscripts with different readings, and therefor some MAN (namely Erasmus and then latter others in other editions) had to make some decision. It certainly is true that the Byzantine (excuse my spelling) manuscripts are much much closer then those used in the critical text, but just one difference in any two texts and good old Erasmus was "choosing" God's words.
I think the KJV version will continue to fade slowly as "modern" English continues to drift farther and farther away from 17th century British English. 400 years from now the NIV will probably be hard for new Christians to read and there will be a NIVO camp who oppose the translation into that "modern" english. I think the American Standard is hard to read and that was only 100 years ago (of course, they may have been trying to keep the beauty of the language of KJV). Hopefully, a good solid translation of the TR will continue to be made in every generation as languages change, morph, simplify, merge with other languages, cultures, and ideas, and as phrases and expressions fall into and out of favor.
I think the KJV version will continue to fade slowly as "modern" English continues to drift farther and farther away from 17th century British English. 400 years from now the NIV will probably be hard for new Christians to read and there will be a NIVO camp who oppose the translation into that "modern" english. I think the American Standard is hard to read and that was only 100 years ago (of course, they may have been trying to keep the beauty of the language of KJV). Hopefully, a good solid translation of the TR will continue to be made in every generation as languages change, morph, simplify, merge with other languages, cultures, and ideas, and as phrases and expressions fall into and out of favor.
Maybe in 200 years someone will drag out the Baptist Board from some Ancient Archive probably some our great-great-great grandchildren and have a good laugh... Will the KJV still be around?... Only God knows!... Brother Glen
What?!!???!!! This is a ridiculous question. Meant to make KJVers look like cultists.
</font>[/QUOTE]I still think the question is good. Anybody that reviews the thread will see that our KJO brethren would REFUSE to use anything but the KJ...even though prior to 1611 EVERYBODY used some version that was "less than perfect" (if you hold that the KJV corrects the Greek/Hebrew, is perfect..etc). If it is perfect then the Geneva was not..nor Tyndales..etc. But get this..Christians used imperfect translations! Wow...amazing thought.
How about the NKJV? That is based upon the TR..I find it hard to believe if that was the only translation a KJO had access to they'd refuse to use it. You can always "white out" the footnotes.
peace,
kman
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Actually, the NKJV is probably the most deceiving of all...
I've never thought of myself as a "cultist", but if that's what I am because I believe the KJBible is the pure Word of God, then so be it...but I don't fault anyone else for what they need in their lives or how the Lord leads them. I don't look down my nose at you or think of you as cultic...
I am sure in what I believe & hold dear. I have a peace that passeth all understanding that I have a "straight stick". I have blessed assurance that what I use as my road map is pure & not fool's gold.
I have enough stuff around my house with KJverses written in it, that if someone forbade me to have a KJBible, I would survive. If I had a choice of another ancestor of the KingJames, I'd use that one, but I believe God gave us this one for today, tomorrow & forever & ever, amen.
I've never thought of myself as a "cultist", but if that's what I am because I believe the KJBible is the pure Word of God, then so be it...but I don't fault anyone else for what they need in their lives or how the Lord leads them. I don't look down my nose at you or think of you as cultic...
I am sure in what I believe & hold dear. I have a peace that passeth all understanding that I have a "straight stick". I have blessed assurance that what I use as my road map is pure & not fool's gold.
I have enough stuff around my house with KJverses written in it, that if someone forbade me to have a KJBible, I would survive. If I had a choice of another ancestor of the KingJames, I'd use that one, but I believe God gave us this one for today, tomorrow & forever & ever, amen.
Isn't technology the most wonderful of two-edged swords? From what I understand of history, the KJ Bible was basically the result of a deisre to be the first readily available Bible using new technology, the printing press. Before that invention, all Bibles were laboriously compiled and hand printed with the ornate artistic lettering we still appreciate and treasure. Yet so few Bibles would be available; they would have to be literally chained to the pulpit so those who wanted access could actually see one. Some folks feel that the TR used by Erasmus was a rush to be the first to use the printing press, so this Bible could be the "First." That claim may be valid in light of manuscripts found since that compilation, but I maintain that with few exceptions, such as peer pressure to include a few verses, Erasmus did a great and thorough job and the KJ Bible is to be commended. As you might guess from other posts, I'm not a KJVO person, and I find the TR to be less than ideal, because of even newer technologies. It's a two-edged sword, that can so easily divide believers today, no?
David
David
tyndale1946 said:
Maybe in 200 years someone will drag out the Baptist Board from some Ancient Archive probably some our great-great-great grandchildren and have a good laugh...
Nah, they'll probably be using it to prove to the NIV-onlyists that there is nothing new under the sun.
And it will have about the same effect on the NIV-onlyists as the same kind of arguments have today on the KJV-onlyists: "Don't trouble me with the facts."
Maybe in 200 years someone will drag out the Baptist Board from some Ancient Archive probably some our great-great-great grandchildren and have a good laugh...
Nah, they'll probably be using it to prove to the NIV-onlyists that there is nothing new under the sun.
And it will have about the same effect on the NIV-onlyists as the same kind of arguments have today on the KJV-onlyists: "Don't trouble me with the facts."
Originally posted by kman
However it should be pointed out that many textual critics do this very same thing when they use the LXX to correct the Hebrew manuscript. Obviously that is just as wrong to do but many who translate the MV's will use the LXX readings over the Masoretic text. Sounds hypocritical to me.
I would categorically deny that the KJV (or any translation) should be used to correct the Greek.
However it should be pointed out that many textual critics do this very same thing when they use the LXX to correct the Hebrew manuscript. Obviously that is just as wrong to do but many who translate the MV's will use the LXX readings over the Masoretic text. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Maybe some always choose the LXX over the Masoretic in every instance of variation, but I have never met anyone like that. There is much more to it. There are many examples even in the KJV's NT where a quote of an OT passage more closely matches the LXX than it does the Masoretic.
Some of the LXX readings predate some of the Hebrew evidence or is more clear than the MT. For instance, the LXX would tell how the vowel points were read in teh centuries before and around the time of Christ, prior to when the vowel points were added. So you argument is comparing apples to oranges.
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Oh, get off your sanctimonious high horse, will ya?
You asked a question; you got some answers. While perusing the thread, it occurred to me the opposite might be true. In fact, you did have at least one person admit that they would only use the KJV until a modern version was re-accomplished. As venomous as you seem to be towards those that say they would only use the KJV--and without asking why, I might add--I dare say you might answer the same way.
Apparently, this "worship" of a version that you're espousing goes both ways, whether we're willing to admit it or not.</font>[/QUOTE]The only problem with your assessment of me is that 1)I'm not on a high horse...I'm not even on a low one....I'm right where I am, standing. After being attacked by KJV people and watching others do the same to the good brother's and sisters who don't use the KJV, I feel it necessary to point out the typical KJV attitude. Thank you again for helping me prove it.
As for any particular version I espouse, I use several (including the KJV), so again, your assessment is an incorrect one. But, I can't blame you for that, you cannot see or know me personally. So that part I will just overlook as unnecessary KJV defensive rhetoric.
B.T.
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
The word "preservation" then is the source of disagreement. Are the underlying texts for the modern versions just as "preserved" as those of the KJV? There were two different versions of the Hebrew holy books, if I'm not mistaken, and Jesus quoted from both of them. Does this mean that Jesus accepted them both as "scripture"?
The modern versions do NOT take away from any of the doctrines of the Bible, even if they are from different underlying texts.
B.T.
DON:
The KJB was not the first mass-produced Bible, even in English. The Geneva Bible, for instance, was published on the continent in 1560 and in England in 1575, long before the KJB.
Luther's Bible was published in 1534; even the Douai-Rheims version predated the KJB (although admittedly it was a translation from the Latin, not the original languages.)
The KJB was not the first mass-produced Bible, even in English. The Geneva Bible, for instance, was published on the continent in 1560 and in England in 1575, long before the KJB.
Luther's Bible was published in 1534; even the Douai-Rheims version predated the KJB (although admittedly it was a translation from the Latin, not the original languages.)
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
I've never thought of myself as a "cultist", but if that's what I am because I believe the KJBible is the pure Word of God, then so be it.
No cultist considers himself a "cultist." Rather, a cultist considers everyone else who has some contact with Christianity-- but, of course, an "apostate" form of it, since their defining tenets are different-- something of a 'cultist,' whether they use such a word or not.
To 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' the "pure Word of God" is anything that comes from the Wathctower Bible and Tract Society. To the Mormons the pure Word of God is anything that comes from their board or "prophets" {and these can amend the writings of Joseph Smith, even though they are considered "inspired"-- compare this to R. Catholicism}. To groups like The Way International, and the International Church of God, they 'believe the Bible,' but only their own peculiar interpretation of many parts of it.
I have long contended that "cult" is to religion as "neurosis" is to psychology. The terms are imprecise and there is no definite separation between those terms and what is standard or normal or comprehensively thought out.
So do KJVO's have 'cultic' beliefs that they, and only they, consider as proof of the correctness of their defining tenet? Yes. But do they have a central authority like the major cults? No. Instead they are more like the 'Churches of Christ,' which maintain that only their view of scripture and the church is the correct one. And also like the C of C's, they can vary considerably about many of their practices; e.g, some C of C's do have instrumental music, though the large majority still do not. But C of C's are cultic in their view that salvation is of both works and faith {most will say so}, and that they would never belong to any local church which did not identify itself as a "Church of Christ" {the only possible name for Christ's church, according to them}.
Still, neither C of C's nor KJVO's have a central authority, but both believe any other form or practice of Christianity outside their defining tenets is 'apostate,' and they do not agree among themselves whether salvation is only of their church or only of their translation of scripture. Their beliefs are cultic because they consider every other besides themselves outside of the truth, yet they are no centrally organized cult.
No cultist considers himself a "cultist." Rather, a cultist considers everyone else who has some contact with Christianity-- but, of course, an "apostate" form of it, since their defining tenets are different-- something of a 'cultist,' whether they use such a word or not.
To 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' the "pure Word of God" is anything that comes from the Wathctower Bible and Tract Society. To the Mormons the pure Word of God is anything that comes from their board or "prophets" {and these can amend the writings of Joseph Smith, even though they are considered "inspired"-- compare this to R. Catholicism}. To groups like The Way International, and the International Church of God, they 'believe the Bible,' but only their own peculiar interpretation of many parts of it.
I have long contended that "cult" is to religion as "neurosis" is to psychology. The terms are imprecise and there is no definite separation between those terms and what is standard or normal or comprehensively thought out.
So do KJVO's have 'cultic' beliefs that they, and only they, consider as proof of the correctness of their defining tenet? Yes. But do they have a central authority like the major cults? No. Instead they are more like the 'Churches of Christ,' which maintain that only their view of scripture and the church is the correct one. And also like the C of C's, they can vary considerably about many of their practices; e.g, some C of C's do have instrumental music, though the large majority still do not. But C of C's are cultic in their view that salvation is of both works and faith {most will say so}, and that they would never belong to any local church which did not identify itself as a "Church of Christ" {the only possible name for Christ's church, according to them}.
Still, neither C of C's nor KJVO's have a central authority, but both believe any other form or practice of Christianity outside their defining tenets is 'apostate,' and they do not agree among themselves whether salvation is only of their church or only of their translation of scripture. Their beliefs are cultic because they consider every other besides themselves outside of the truth, yet they are no centrally organized cult.