KJVOs (who never use modern versions except to attack God's word) are the only ones who seem to doubt. I don't find this doubt anywhere else. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bruce Metzger doubts the Book of Genesis. He produced his bible version. How could you deny anyone doubt the Word of God? Look at him!
-
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!
Use of the KJV
- Thread starter TheOliveBranch
- Start date
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, the NASB is great!
Taufgesinnter
New Member
To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK, so you have no evidence to present. Got it.
Archangel7
New Member
So you have never misquoted the Bible or even paraphrased? </font>[/QUOTE]The Scriptures tell us plainly that Jesus himself used and sanctioned different versions. Read Isa. 61:1-2 in your KJV, then turn to Lk. 4:16-21 and read the different version of it found in the Bible Jesus used in his hometown synagogue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if a different version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
You espoused an opinion, nothing more.
If you don't use the 1611 Authorised Version, you are using a revision of God's Holy Word. If it is indeed "perfect" then why did it have to be revised over a century after the original translation?
The Geneva Bible is also the perfect Word of God. If you believe that your KJV is "perfect" then you really have no basis for rejecting Tyndale's translation.
As for the NKJV, it is a FANTASTIC translation that actually compares the manuscripts, noting the differences in the marginal notes. My wife uses the NKJV and I really like it as well. I have yet to see anyone make a valid case for the total rejection of the NKJV.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Once again, you are mistaken. We have already covered this in another thread.
timothy 1769
New Member
In the other thread no one at any time proved the 136 differences were anything other than printer's errors.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Which version of the King James Bible are you using? Does it contain the Apocrypha, as does my 1611 Authorised Version?
Taufgesinnter
New Member
To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK, so you have no evidence to present. Got it. </font>[/QUOTE]Some evidences what I learned about Metzger are that you still deny. </font>[/QUOTE]
That kind of immaturity doesn't do your point of view any favors.I don't deny what I've never seen. You might be confusing me with someone else--I'm not sure--but the first time I've ever asked you about Metzger was in the last few days, and you not only have offered me zero evidence of anything, but have accused me of ignoring or denying the evidence you've never offered me. If you've provided quotes supporting your vague charges against Metzger on another thread that I've never read, give a link to it. Don't just make false accusations.
Archangel7
New Member
No one at any time proved that they were anything other than deliberate changes of wording introduced into the text of the KJV either.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Here is an interesting web page i
found in my surfing:
Have you seen some of the changes
that publishers are making in your
King James Bible?
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BPS/BPS_changes.htm
So, it looks like every publisher feels
like they have the right to change
the Authorized King James Version?
found in my surfing:
Have you seen some of the changes
that publishers are making in your
King James Bible?
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BPS/BPS_changes.htm
So, it looks like every publisher feels
like they have the right to change
the Authorized King James Version?
Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Was the word "currently" in my question somehow unclear? A nice try at deflecting or clouding the issue however.
Of course the KJV has had a 375 year headstart on the NIV relative to sales/distribution, that obvious fact explains why the KJV has had higher overall distribution figures since inception. The fact is though that the KJV's percentage share of Bibles distributed continues to drop, and the percentage share of MV's (including the NIV) is rising.
Roughly 12X as many people (and growing) live on Earth today as did in 1611, which makes the potential market for God's Word that much larger both today and in the future. Do the math for yourself: with the current Bible distribution & population growth patterns, eventually some other version of God's Word will surpass the KJV in overall copies. Whether that version is in English or in another language (1.2 billion+ Chinese could use copies of God's Word!) makes no difference to me. I'm not so ethnocentric that I believe that God's Word can only be perfect in the particular language I speak. God's Word is for all peoples, in all generations; and God's Word has been forever settled in Heaven, and not settled only in the English language of the early 17th century.
I was saved out of the KJV; and I will continue to use my KJV (along with my NASB & my NIV). I refuse to submit to a man-made bibliolatry however and be blinded to the truth about God's Word.
Let me put this succinctly: Based on present, measurable trends, eventually the KJV could have about as much market-share of Bibles distributed as the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles have today.
timothy 1769
New Member
Which version of the King James Bible are you using? Does it contain the Apocrypha, as does my 1611 Authorised Version? </font>[/QUOTE]I generally use an Old Scofield, a Thompson Chain, and whatever comes with my Accordance Bible software. I also listen to Scourby quite a bit, it's amazing how clearly the meaning comes through his reading, especially in the epistles.
I do have the 1611 word for word reprint, which includes the apocrypha. If you haven't already, you should try reading Tobit, it's very entertaining.
As for why the 1611 translation includes the apocrypha, please see the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, it explains it quite well.
timothy 1769
New Member
Ed, we agree!Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Here is an interesting web page i
found in my surfing:
Have you seen some of the changes
that publishers are making in your
King James Bible?
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BPS/BPS_changes.htm
So, it looks like every publisher feels
like they have the right to change
the Authorized King James Version?
I think it's sad too. I guess there ARE some advantages to copyright.....
This is untrue. Will you stop repeating false teaching?
</font>[/QUOTE]Untrue? That is a main problem!
False teaching? No! </font>[/QUOTE]You have yet to show even one place where the MVs have corrupted God's word. By definition, Homebound made a statement that is false and he was teaching others by it. That is, by definition, false teaching. Until you can show this "corruption" you will lose this argument everytime. The problem is that you will not put your money where your mouth is and actually show this corruption. All you can offer is refutable arguments.
KJVOs (who never use modern versions except to attack God's word) are the only ones who seem to doubt. I don't find this doubt anywhere else. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bruce Metzger doubts the Book of Genesis. He produced his bible version. How could you deny anyone doubt the Word of God? Look at him! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]When did you get to be God?? How in the world can you this man's spiritual condition? And what difference does it make?? The work of textual criticism requires a knowlege of Greek and Hebrew and a knowledge of transmissional principles.
Besides, last I checked Metzger never produced a Bible version (false statement number 1 by you); Genesis in the Old Testament, not the new where Metzger did his work.
You yourself are condemned by this same standard because you doubt the word of God on the matter of bibliology. If you standard is the the standard, we would have to include you in the category with Metzger. I am unwilling to do that. You should be as well.
TheOliveBranch
New Member
I can see where this would support the argument for inspiration of the KJB. If the NT used quotes with errors, or changes made in translation, and claimed it to be inspired (in 1Tim), then this would be support the idea of inspiration.
TheOliveBranch
New Member
In taking a couple of days off from this board, I have had some time to think about a few things. I read this and a thought came across my mind as to what possibly could be wrong with the changes made in the language, or modernizing some of the archaic words?Originally posted by timothy 1769:
this seems like a case of onlyist paranoia. what does it matter--30 yrs or 300 yrs. the principle's the same. when the language changes--at whatever rate (n mind u, the rate of change, w the Internet n globalisation, isn't slowing any)--so will the translation of Scripture (n what a blessing, that somebody's alert to the changes n has a heart to get it out in the ploughboy's contemporary, koinH langauge).
Historically didn't widespread literacy and education actually slow down the rate of change in English language? If so, what does that say about our times?
In any event, I don't fundamentally oppose the idea of updating the language of a translation. I would even consider using a minimally updated KJV if the updater could truly limit himself to only updating the clearly archaic language and not in any way attempting to "correct" the translation proper. For example, I think the Modern KJV goes way way too far. But on the whole I think it's probably best to just learn the few hundred archaic words.
But when changes come every two decades, I suspect such updates have more to do with following cultural/intellectual fads (like inclusive language) than with dealing with true changes in our language.
This past Sunday was particularly enjoyable because the pastor of the church I am currently attending chose to use the KJB for all services. Why do I become so uncomfortable when he reads from the NASB? It may be my onlism background, but nobody had to guess at where he was reading from, which words are so different that you can't see the same meaning, and other problems with trying to follow when different versions are being used.
The answers became more clear when we started to sing from the hymnal. Hymns are, for the most part, written with archaic words also. Now the church feels it necessary to take some time to explain what the meaning of some of the phrases. I understand the meanings of the phrases, because I read from the KJV every day. I know the meaning. So I wonder how long it woill be before the older hymns will be tossed aside for more modern, easily understood hymns? And then on to more modern music? I know the arguments for "what's wrong with that?", but as we leave behid the older words, we also accept modern ways. Desensitization is on it's way in. Maybe there is something in what I have read which stated that the evangelical movement has broadened the road, softening christians to accepting what wasn't acceptable christianity in the past. And that the Bible men of old were condemned by liberals as "they falsely identified good men with radicalism and extremism".
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
This was not the subject of the discussion. I know all about the "Anglican 39 Articles of Religion," and it has been referenced numerous times. I was not asking why the Apocrypha was in the AV, nor do I have a problem with its inclusion in the AV. As for reading "Tobit," I have read it numerous times, although I am partial to Bel and the Dragon. To partially quote verse 5: Because I may not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh.
With the post you quoted, I am referring to the common misconception that many KJVO's have that they are using the 1611 KJV. They are not.
I even listened to a shortwave program on WWCR (5.050 or 5.085 - cannot remember which frequency) called the "AV 1611 Hour" that had someone attacking anyone and everyone not using the "1611" King James Bible. As I listened to him, I followed along in my AV and it was obvious that he wasn't even using the Version of God's Holy Word he was espousing.