The W-H/KJV onlyists and the TR/KJV onlyists

Yes - if someone uses other versions, they are not KJV onlyists.

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

I use every source any reliable resource I can put my hands on for discerning God's Word as He delivered it in the original texts.

I guess you can call me a God's Word onlyist... since I don't buy the notion that Erasmus, Anglican priests, W & H, Lockman, Nestle, Aland, or any other fallible human being has performed the perfect, end-all work.

I along with the KJV translators believe that comparing their works gives the best opportunity for determining the true sense of scripture.

 

I have to agree with Scott. Before I started studying Hebrew and Greek; I learned more from my good ole' parallel Bible. ...and for once, I could see what the KJV actually meant in a lot of places.

By the way askjo. What are the corrupt Greek texts you are referring to and where do you have proof that they are corrupt?

Let me add another gotcha. Since the King James was NOT translated from the TR as we have it today, then why would the TR be considered any better than those Greek documents?

For those who study the KJV and ITS background source material, you are going to have to include several English translations and the Vulgate...otherwise, the NKJV is one of the few Bibles that I know that actually uses the TR.

 

Am I the only one insulted by this?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Am I the only one insulted by this?
</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe I will be insulted too, once I understand what he is talking about.

 

Askjo,
At least you admit there are corrupt texts. It's sad that people who don't know what you're talking about are so quick to attack people who believe the KJB to be 100% without error.

Pr 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
David

 

Askjo,

I do think that we are going to need some more clarification as to your intent and where your information has come from. Thanks

Bro Tony

 

I had heard that Bob Jones uses the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, but I thought they, as a non-denominational university, were somehow KJVO in their stated constitution. Anyone else know this to be true? Also, it might be nice to know what their stated stance is on the GNT. Anyone know this?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Am I the only one insulted by this?

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]The use of the word 'corrupt' by this post is a clear violation of BB rules. I too am insulted by this usage of terms to describe the modern Greek texts. I could say something as equally bad about the TR/KJV, but that would be a violation of the rules.

 

Since when was God's Word "corrupt"? If their are "corrupt" manuscripts doesn't that kind of negate the whole premis of the KJVO preservationists? I thought God would perfectly preserve His word, how then can their be "corrupt" manuscripts?

 

Its funny how the definition of the word "corrupt" is associated with manuscripts hmmm.

WordNet Dictionary:

3. Containing errors or alterations; "a corrupt text"; "spoke a corrupted version of the language"

Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

3. Abounding in errors; not genuine or correct; as, the text of the manuscript is corrupt.

...

 

Actually, the usage of the word "corrupt" is not a violation of the BB rules. In fact, it is not even a violation of the BV/T Forum Guidelines.

The fact is, some sources have been corrupted. To express one's opinion of which family of MSS that would apply to is certainly within the guidelines of this forum.

 

What Pastor Bob said.
And just because YOU are offended by the use of the term, nevertheless, in the context in which it was used, it is a perfectly valid use of the term.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

So which manuscripts are "corrupt" then? How do you know which one is not corrupt, especially considering that no two manuscripts agree 100%? Who is the judge of which manuscripts are corrupt and which are not?

 

How would you feel if I were to say your KJV was corrupt because it has errors?

 

Umm...in case you missed it;
errors = corrupt
so...you just DID !
To corrupt is to depart from what is true or correct, therefore to say the KJV has errors is the same as saying it is corrupt.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

In order to explain the many changes from the 1611 edition of the KJV to present KJV editions, even the KJV-only view acknowledges that the 1611 KJV had errors. Of course, KJV-only advocates blame all the errors in the 1611 on the printers.
Are you implying that printing errors makes the KJV "corrupt?" An error is still an error regardless of whether it is made by a printer, editor, or translator. By the way, what is the difference between a manuscript having an error made by a copier and the 1611 KJV having an error made by a printer?

Actually, all the renderings in the 1611 KJV
that later editors changed were not the fault of the printers. In some cases, the KJV translators were clearly responsible since the KJV translators
kept the rendering from the earlier Bishops' Bible. The KJV translators were responsible for the renderings they kept from the Bishops' Bible.