• 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!

Questions for KJVOs

Caissie

New Member
Tinytim,

Yes, I know of the places that the TR does not agree with the Majority. As I said at the beginning, I think it is the better translation. I never said I think it was inspired or 100% accurate.


Ed Edwards,

Yes, it is called the "triquetra" that is Latin for "three-cornered".

I was just answering the question asked, and it asked what I had against the NKJV, so I told him. Yes, that is small, and that is because I don't have any BIG complaints about the NKJV. I am not attacking anyone who uses the NKJV. I DO think it is a good translation (I would advise people to get that one if they just absolutly will not read the KJV and I would advise people to stay away from the NIV, Message, etc.)


Caissie
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There have been several EDITIONS of the AV but NO REVISIONS!!! This is very easy to check out if anyone really wants to.
To Revise:
Main Entry: 2re·vise
Pronunciation: ri-'vIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·vised; re·vis·ing
Etymology: Middle French reviser, from Latin revisere to look at again, frequentative of revidEre to see again, from re- + vidEre to see
transitive senses
1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript> b British : to study again :
2 a : to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of <revise a dictionary> b : to provide with a new taxonomic arrangement <revising the alpine ferns>
intransitive senses, British :
synonym see CORRECT Merriam Webster Online http://www.m-w.com
The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632. A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance ;
Also found online at http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/

The most accurate editions, in giving the text the King James revisers intended, were the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638. In 1701, the editors added dates in the margin, based on the chronologies of the learned Archbishop James Ussher - but these are now regarded as wildly inaccurate. In 1769 Benjamin Blayney of Oxford produced a careful and comprehensive revision, the product of four years of work. English Versions of the Bible Andrew Moore found at http://www.shunsley.eril.net/armoore/bible/englishbible.htm#kjvrevisions
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by charlie parker:
The AV was and is authorized by the replacement for the levitical priesthood, who were charged by God in matters of holy writ, The NT preisthood of believers .Bible believers who received with joy and propagated it....
You must be one silly "son of the perverse rebellious woman," as the little KJV puts it. The NT has no Levitical priesthood or anything to replace it, and it definitely would not be Jimmy's puppets who 'christened' babies and imprisoned and tortured Baptists and others who were such a threat to the kings's proprietary church.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Originally posted by Caissie:
Tinytim,

Yes, I know of the places that the TR does not agree with the Majority. As I said at the beginning, I think it is the better translation. I never said I think it was inspired or 100% accurate.

Caissie
Again, welcome to BB, I'm glad you're here.
I rate the KJV along side the NASB as being the most accurate. I also like the NKJV.
personally, I don't read the NIV very much, it just seems so stiff of a translation to me. But that's an opinion. And around here you will find many of those


Anyway, tell us a little about yourself.
 

Caissie

New Member
Originally posted by tinytim:
Again, welcome to BB, I'm glad you're here.
I rate the KJV along side the NASB as being the most accurate. I also like the NKJV.
personally, I don't read the NIV very much, it just seems so stiff of a translation to me. But that's an opinion. And around here you will find many of those


Anyway, tell us a little about yourself.
I went in the Army after High School. Served on active duty for 6 years as a MP (K-9 handler). One night on patrol I turned on the AM radio and heard this guy, Kent Hovind ( www.drdino.com ). He challanged my beliefs about the age of the earth and I had to go prove him wrong. But actually, I ended up proving him right. That one night ended up drastically changing my life for ever. Now, I take no ones word for truth except THE Word. Anyway, I then got out of the Army, went to school and now I teach Physics.

My beliefs tend to lean closer to what the Baptist believe on most subjects (but I do not agree with anyone on everything and if I did that would probably mean that I was in a cult.) I believe God gave me a brain to think for myself...to read the Bible for myself, analyze, and with the Holy Spirit's help, find out what the truth is for myself and not take some preacher's word for it.

So, what about you Tinytim?
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.
KJVO's:kjbo's.."by their fruit you will know them", some like J__ W___ are Pharisees. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Someone like Orvie learly a proven slanderer. I am going to ask that Orvie please provide non refutable documentation for his claims, or apologize, or admit that he would rather lie then be honest.


I've often wondered how one who claims to be a Christian can engage in such willfull lying. I guess though, that when you are a liar and the truth isn't you, it's pretty easy, as Orvie loves to prove us.

Oh and Orvie, the aove are not my words, they are Gods.

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3-6)

He has commanded against lying and bearing false witness Orvie, and since you, like your mv brethren refuse to obey thiese commands, well then He calls you a liar. I just agree with what the word of God says.


Jim
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Interestingly enough, Jim says in one post, "Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess," (which not only calls a person's honesty in question, but his salvation as well," and then immediately calls someone a slanderer. It doesn't even appear that Orvie was the one Jim was calling a liar, yet Orvie is the one who is willfully lying somehow.

He also implies (willful or unintentional, it doesn't really matter) that a) all mv brethren refuse to obey the commands to be honest and that b) KJVO's would never do such a thing.

One wonders if soon Jim will follow in the footsteps of another poster on this board who was recently dismissed. Sometimes I wonder the same about Orvie - even though he and I agree, his words are just as biting as Jim's and the recently-departed QuickeningSpirit/Precepts.
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Scott, I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar. if there is one out there, then I would be pleased to meet him/her. However, from the mv "defenders" I ahve encountered, there is no such animal.


Jim
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
See what I mean? I'm not a willful liar at all.

Wait, is a liar someone who disagrees with Truth or someone who disagrees with you?

And furthermore, are you saying that anyone who defends an mv hasn't been regenerated? (See your previous posts)
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Scott, I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar.
And tit-for-tat, if we allowed this attack from you, we would say, "I have yet to meet an "only" who isn't a sladerer . . . "

Com'on Jim. We DO NOT ALLOW folks to call each other "liar". You know that.
 

charlie parker

New Member
Copied: "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. im afraid im in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...Im in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terrible wrong; its frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it.
When questions began to reaqch me at first I was offended...I used to laugh with others...However, in attimpting to answer, I began to sence that something was not right about the New American Standard Version. I can no longhr ignore these critisms I am hearing and I cant refute them...the deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all this? Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV, The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...I dont want anything to do with it.
[T]he finest leaders that we have today...havent gone into it [the new versions use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it...thats how easily one can be decieved...Im going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things.
[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!...I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version, If you must stand against everyone else,stand..."


Dr. Frank Logsden

______________________________________________
Thanks Doc, I could'nt have said it better.
Charlie
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by charlie parker:
I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version.
KJVO#5 - RUN, DON'T WALK away from such blasphemy that requires a second work of the Spirit of God in 1611 to a group an paedo-baptizing Anglican priests.

That phrase about special "leading, guidance, supervising, etc" are all words for a MIRACULOUS work of the Spirit akin to Divine inspiration. We see it all the time.

I've warned people that under the "moderate" title of folks who say they are "onlies" is the TOTALLY FALSE TEACHING of the sect.
 

charlie parker

New Member
Alcott wrote&gt;&gt;&gt;You must be one silly "son of the perverse rebellious woman," as the little KJV puts it. The NT has no Levitical priesthood or anything to replace it, and it definitely would not be Jimmy's puppets who 'christened' babies and imprisoned and tortured Baptists and others who were such a threat to the kings's proprietary church.&lt;&lt;&lt;
________________________________________________
I sure am glad you are not quoting Kenny-boy Taylor's funny little offering, "the original" that so many are enamoured by, I would probably be offended for at least 2 seconds, Well...probably not that long. but, anyway---we all know what you meant. :)

Charlie
 

charlie parker

New Member
Dr. Bob Griffin wrote&gt;&gt;KJVO#5 - RUN, DON'T WALK away from such blasphemy that requires a second work of the Spirit of God in 1611 to a group an paedo-baptizing Anglican priests.

That phrase about special "leading, guidance, supervising, etc" are all words for a MIRACULOUS work of the Spirit akin to Divine inspiration. We see it all the time.

I've warned people that under the "moderate" title of folks who say they are "onlies" is the TOTALLY FALSE TEACHING of the sect.&lt;&lt;&lt;
________________________________________________
Yes Sir, But---the above statement was made by one of the "fathers" of the thing, he surely knows more about its worth than we do---Also, I too give the same warning about the mv cult.

Charlie
 

Tonja Buettner

New Member
I am in complete shock that so many people deny that the KJB is the inerrant, infalliable, Word of God. I had no idea so many "Baptists" believed anything else.

We serve a God that formed the world and everything you see from nothing, He can keep a soul from burning in hell, yet He can't keep His Word preserved thru the ages.

Amazing...Simply Amazing!

Tonja
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
One wonders if soon Jim will follow in the footsteps of another poster on this board who was recently dismissed. Sometimes I wonder the same about Orvie - even though he and I agree, his words are just as biting as Jim's and the recently-departed QuickeningSpirit/Precepts.
Yeah Scott, I admit you are right...I am obnoxious on purpose...call it what you will, I'm just giving the KJVO's:kjbo's their own medicine. :eek: I know two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights made an airplane. :D If ya met me in person, or Jim, too..we'd probably get along much better than we do posting in the BB. ;) (even Precepts, too)
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.
KJVO's:kjbo's.."by their fruit you will know them", some like J__ W___ are Pharisees. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Someone like Orvie learly a proven slanderer. I am going to ask that Orvie please provide non refutable documentation for his claims, or apologize, or admit that he would rather lie then be honest.


I've often wondered how one who claims to be a Christian can engage in such willfull lying. I guess though, that when you are a liar and the truth isn't you, it's pretty easy, as Orvie loves to prove us.

Oh and Orvie, the aove are not my words, they are Gods.

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3-6)

He has commanded against lying and bearing false witness Orvie, and since you, like your mv brethren refuse to obey thiese commands, well then He calls you a liar. I just agree with what the word of God says.


Jim
</font>[/QUOTE]***yawn*** and you actually wonder why you're called a Pharisee?
laugh.gif
 

charlie parker

New Member
Dr Bob Griffin wrote&gt;&gt;Dr. Bob Griffin wrote&gt;&gt;KJVO#5 - RUN, DON'T WALK away from such blasphemy that requires a second work of the Spirit of God in 1611 to a group an paedo-baptizing Anglican priests&lt;&lt;&lt;
_____________________________________________

paedo-baptizing Anglican priests---Lets look at the NeoEvangelical founders of the new king jimmy,
Ockenga, Charismatic healer Zimmerman, tulip baby sprinkler Stelzer, and others, Can such a group give us a "bible"? Well, lets take an "objective look at it and see, First of all it is not a King James Bible, It is an RSV, NASV and ASV mixed in with readings from the AV. compare Job 1:1 the reading does not occure in any AV edition, it is an RSV reading. Job 3;7 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading, Job 3;8 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 3;8 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 3;26 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 4;4 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 4;17 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job `13;8 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 13;12 in no edition of the AV, it is an RSV reading. Job 26;13 not in any edition of the AV it is an RSV reading. Job 35;3 in no edition of the AV it is an RSV reading.Job 41;25 not in any edition of any AV, it is an RSV reading. These are just a few vss from one book, since its the first book ever written, I chose it, If you like I can go thru the whole thing and you will come out with RSV NASB and ASV readings, its not a NKJV it is an RSVNASBASV, with little resemblence to the AV.

Charlie
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Scott, I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar. if there is one out there, then I would be pleased to meet him/her. However, from the mv "defenders" I ahve encountered, there is no such animal.


Jim
I have rarely met a KJVO;kjbo who doesn't suppress the truth by minimizing the inconsistencies in the KJV:kjb, and blowing way out of proportion the same in the MV's. And you call that honest?
laugh.gif
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Tonja Buettner:
I am in complete shock that so many people deny that the KJB is the inerrant, infalliable, Word of God. I had no idea so many "Baptists" believed anything else.

We serve a God that formed the world and everything you see from nothing, He can keep a soul from burning in hell, yet He can't keep His Word preserved thru the ages.

Amazing...Simply Amazing!

Tonja
Hi Tonja- we ALL believe God has preserved His Word...However, some believe He has PICKLED it in English in the KJV, the rest of us believe that He preserved it in the same place He did even before 1611. ;)
 
Top