1. 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!

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

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Askjo, Feb 8, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jim I think maybe your definition is a bit harsh, or maybe too literal. If this is the definition we stick to then we would have to say that ALL translations are corrupt. I don't believe that, but I also don't believe there is one that is word-for-word perfect.
     
    #21 Phillip, Feb 10, 2005
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    TTU uses it, too. </font>[/QUOTE]Shouldn't they use one of the comprehensive texts that lists significant variants?

    That would seem the most reasonable, honest approach.
     
    #22 Scott J, Feb 10, 2005
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you are right (I don't think you are BTW) then the KJV is corrupt.

    There is no indication that Paul used the phrase "God forbid" anywhere in Romans. There is little if any evidence to suggest that John wrote "book of life" rather than "tree of life" in Rev 22:19.

    Therefore if your reasoning is actually valid :rolleyes: then the KJV is corrupt and you shouldn't use it.

    Thank God you are absolutely wrong [​IMG] .
     
    #23 Scott J, Feb 10, 2005
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dake's Annotated Reference Bible defines "corrupt" in the Greek, "Kapeleuo, adulterate. Only here, but the word kapelos occurs in the Sept. of tavern-keepers who mix wine with water. The idea here is that the false apostles who were disturbing the Corinthians were mixing the word of God with their own inventions and explaining it away to accommodate their hearers to get gain. Much of the word of God is being adulterated today in many parts of Christendom."

    Vincent said, "adulterating it for the purpose of gain or popularity." Modern versions are popluar and are adulterating by these false scholars, by making merchandise of them.

    According to a famous old-time writer, he wrote, modern versions are "corrupted directly by mixing with lies and foolishness and were corrupted indirectly by pleasing men."

    Bishop J.C.Ryle wrote, "We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously, when we throw any doubt on the plenary inspiration of any part of Holy Scripture."

    Remember Will Kinney? He wrote, "To corrupt the word of God is not the same thing as to peddle the word of God. To corrupt the word of God is to add, take away, or mix it with false readings and meanings. The result is to cast doubt upon the authority, truth and integrity of the infallible words of God."

    American Heritage Dictionary defines "corrupt" as "containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation."
     
    #24 Askjo, Feb 10, 2005
  5. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember Will Kinney? He wrote, "To corrupt the word of God is not the same thing as to peddle the word of God. To corrupt the word of God is to add, take away, or mix it with false readings and meanings. The result is to cast doubt upon the authority, truth and integrity of the infallible words of God."

    Before making such a blanket statement you might should take a hard look at the AV1611. It fails your test Askjo!

    The 1769 KJV does the same thing to the 1611KJV. The 1611 KJV had marginal notes that do the same thing.

    Will Kenny? Please, yet another KJVO who rebages the same old KJVO junk over and over again.
     
    #25 David J, Feb 10, 2005
  6. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes:
     
    #26 Askjo, Feb 11, 2005
  7. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.     </font>[/QUOTE]The views expressed by Askjo were not intended in the manner as you have described it, and you should have been as equally offended by this crude remark. Why you have chosen to defend it belies your own bias toward one text over another, even agreeing with it as being 'corrupt' in the worst possible meaning. To ascribe 'corruption' in this light, being that the modern eclectic Greek NT texts (W/H, Nestle-Aland, or UBS) were somehow purposefully altered by some 'evil' textual scholars, is very troubling indeed. If you desire to be taken seriously, you should be more careful in what you call evil or destructive. Regardless of your personal opinions about the various Greek texts, you should not be going about ignorantly calling a text as being 'corrupt'.

    C4K has rightfully deleted this nonsensical accusation.
     
    #27 LRL71, Feb 11, 2005
  8. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    Are you taking about the person who was caught plagiarizing and copying from another website without their permission against the post on the website forbidding such things?
     
    #28 gb93433, Feb 12, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...