Versions that are Invalid:

[Ed Edwards]

Faith alone: //My personal view is that I just want to see people in God's Word. //

Amen, Faith alone -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Faith alone: //And I do respect the history behind both main Greek families. Having gone through the entire NT twice looking for places in which the MT and the CT were significantly in variance has left me with a comfortable feeling regarding both of them.//

Amen, Faith alone -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

That is a good thing to do, you are responsible for
your own relationship with Messiah Jesus

 

[JFox1]

I'm surprised that 23.08% said that the English Standard Version is invalid. I can understand why the New World Translation would be considered invalid, but the ESV?

 

[mcdirector]

I'm surprised that 23.08% said that the English Standard Version is invalid. I can understand why the New World Translation would be considered invalid, but the ESV?

But a slightly higher number take issue with the NIV -- translated slightly differently, but still . .

And a slightly less number take issue with the NASB.

So, I think there is some fair consistency here at least.

 

[4boys4joys]

Franklinmonroe: //"Valid" would mean a genuinely
well founded (best accepted practices) translation
effort made in good-faith (honest scholarship);
"valid" does not mean perfect.//

Actually there are two schools of Freedom Readers:

1. (mine): the valid versions (VV) are those correctly
translated -- they are perfect by transfer from perfect
sources

2. the valid versions are those correctly translated
in all significant (doctrinal) points; only the original sources
are perfect

So 'valid' is a compromise word that all Freedom Readers
can share.

I will leave it to the type #2 freedom readers to tell
what basic assumptions (formerly axioms)/definitiions they make
to get to their conclusion.

I personally think the KJVOs that come from what I like
to call "the no school School" or "the cult of ignorance"
who assume "no learning but direct from the Holy Spirit
can be used by the Lord to bless His Kingdom" --those type KJVOs (and I suggest that is the minority
group, mostly the folks that can't last on BB over a fortnight),
don't even know enough to understand that
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS LOGICAL
or even what 'logical' means. But the brainer KJVOs
that can handle formal logic can posit their own
axioms (now called 'assumptions') and define their
own definitions from which they 'prove' their KJVO
doctrines (cause they don't come directly out of the
KJV).

Brother Bob can you please explain this statement. The one that I have put in bold print. I hope that you are not trying to lump people that are KJVO into one system of thought or thinking. By categorizing them as coming from a "cult of ignorance".

We have many opinions on this board about what is truth and what is not. But I would hope that those who hold to KJVO would be respected as much as those who do not. Both sides believe just as strongly as the other and I think that lumping IBF's and KJVO's into cults and ignorance is something that posters need to think about.

Anyone of the opinions presented here could be labeled a cult based on the mere definition of the word.

I would hope that we could state our opinions without generalizing and assuming that everyone that believes something other than what you see as truth with a one word phrase or group with a certain mentality. To say that a KJVO is the"no school School" You have to back that up.

And of course you have to back that up with all versions of the Bible you think are valid unlike the KJVO's here. Even though I have not seen you do that here to back up any of your opinions here. Looks like you are contradicting yourself. First you say that all things do not have to be learned from the Holy Spirit but then you say the KJVO's do not back up their opinions with scripture if all learing does not have to be spirit inspired then why do KJVO's have to back that up with scripture that is supposed to be spirit breathed. It should not matter to you either way.

I am wearing my oven mitts. :type:

 

[EdSutton]

I personally think the KJVOs that come from what I like
to call "the no school School" or "the cult of ignorance"
who assume "no learning but direct from the Holy Spirit
can be used by the Lord to bless His Kingdom" --those type KJVOs (and I suggest that is the minority
group, mostly the folks that can't last on BB over a fortnight),

Brother Bob can you please explain this statement. The one that I have put in bold print. I hope that you are not trying to lump people that are KJVO into one system of thought or thinking. By categorizing them as coming from a "cult of ignorance".

Uh, nobody that goes by the handle of Brother Bob made any of the above statement you have emboldened.

So you might want tio start over, here. And may I request that when you do, please post it in black color, and a different font, like Verdana, which is somewhat larger print. This one is extremely hard to read, with the style and color combined, on the blue background of the pages of the BB.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

I'm surprised that 23.08% said that the English Standard Version is invalid. I can understand why the New World Translation would be considered invalid, but the ESV?

Go click on any 'number of votes' and you can see who
voted for what.
It seems that 18% wanted to sabotage my poll.
But it worked without them.
Another 5 or 6% didn't really understand the poll:
a vote 'for' a Bible means it is INVALID.
A vote 'aganst' a Bible means:
1. It is Valid
or 2. I don't know enough
to say that it is Invalid

 

[Faith alone]

Uh, didn't see the New World Translation there - as it said BWT. I wondered why some people were talking about that translation when it was not part of the poll. :tongue3:

Oops. Didn't read it very closely.

IMO that is not a valid translation. I do believe that some real "translation" took place there, but not much of it on a professional level. Now I'm going to guess that those who listed the NASB, NIV and ESV as invalid are KJVOers. IMO that is was classifies someone as KJVO - rejection of all but the KJV, or rejection of all modern translations. So those of you who love their KJV - more power to you. I used it for many years, and God used it in my life. But now... if people will just let me read my HCSB, I'm happy.

FA

 

[4boys4joys]

Sorry I got the name wrong here. I should have addressed that to Ed. If using a different font and color would encourage a response then I guess I could do that. I am sorry to have made that mistake, I have seen this happen on other boards and usally the poster being addressed will let you know you got the wrong name and try to answer the post inspite of human error.Here it is again as requested.

Quote: Ed Edwards

I personally think the KJVOs that come from what I like
to call "the no school School" or "the cult of ignorance"
who assume "no learning but direct from the Holy Spirit
can be used by the Lord to bless His Kingdom" --those type KJVOs (and I suggest that is the minority
group, mostly the folks that can't last on BB over a fortnight),
don't even know enough to understand that
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS LOGICAL
or even what 'logical' means. But the brainer KJVOs
that can handle formal logic can posit their own
axioms (now called 'assumptions') and define their
own definitions from which they 'prove' their KJVO
doctrines (cause they don't come directly out of the
KJV).

ED can you please explain this statement. The one that I have put in bold print. I hope that you are not trying to lump people that are KJVO into one system of thought or thinking. By categorizing them as coming from a "cult of ignorance".

We have many opinions on this board about what is truth and what is not. But I would hope that those who hold to KJVO would be respected as much as those who do not. Both sides believe just as strongly as the other and I think that lumping IBF's and KJVO's into cults and ignorance is something that posters need to think about.

Anyone of the opinions presented here could be labeled a cult based on the mere definition of the word.

I would hope that we could state our opinions without generalizing and assuming that everyone that believes something other than what you see as truth with a one word phrase or group with a certain mentality. To say that a KJVO is the"no school School" You have to back that up.

And of course you have to back that up with all versions of the Bible you think are valid unlike the KJVO's here. Even though I have not seen you do that here to back up any of your opinions here. Looks like you are contradicting yourself. First you say that all things do not have to be learned from the Holy Spirit but then you say the KJVO's do not back up their opinions with scripture if all learing does not have to be spirit inspired then why do KJVO's have to back that up with scripture that is supposed to be spirit breathed. It should not matter to you either way.

I am wearing my oven mitts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

... So those of you who love their KJV - more power to you. I used it for many years, and God used it in my life. But now... if people will just let me read my HCSB, I'm happy.

FA

Amen, Faith alone -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Of course, I am humbled to proudly say:
I read more different versions of the KJV than
94% of the KJVOs

Not only that, for the first 28 years I was a Christian,
I used the KJV1769 edition only.

Check out this topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2394

It lists 5 different types of KJVOs.
I'm a KJVO Type 2 myself.

Some other people seem not to have read that topic,
but it is quite interesting.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

I am wearing my oven mitts.

I described a shoe.
Those who who are under conviction
by God may choose to wear it.
I sure don't make anybody wear them.

Here are some commonly mentioned Baptist
Distinctives:

* Biblical authority
* Autonomy of the local church
* Priesthood of all believers
* Two ordinances (baptism and communion)
* Individual soul liberty
* Separation of Church and State
* Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon)

KJVO is not a Baptist Distinctive.
Individual soul liberty is a Baptist Distinctive.

I was called to minister to God's ministers
in 19
I was called to minister to God's ministers
on-line in 1984.
I never have been uncalled.
I am more likely to do nice stuff than bad stuff.


(I do feel like a fool cause what I though was
a clearly worded message seems to have
been totally misunderstood???)

Please read the O.P. (opening post) in this topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2394

before this discussion proceeds. Thank you.
I am a KJVO Type #2. What are you?

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(of which I am one):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

I am an Independant Baptist
I am a Fundamental Baptist
I am NOT a registered Independent Fundamental Baptist.

 

[TCGreek]

I described a shoe.
Those who who are under conviction
by God may choose to wear it.
I sure don't make anybody wear them.

Here are some commonly mentioned Baptist
Distinctives:

* Biblical authority
* Autonomy of the local church
* Priesthood of all believers
* Two ordinances (baptism and communion)
* Individual soul liberty
* Separation of Church and State
* Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon)

KJVO is not a Baptist Distinctive.

Emphasis added.

Words of wisdom. Thank you. :thumbs:

 

[4boys4joys]

I described a shoe.
Those who who are under conviction
by God may choose to wear it.
I sure don't make anybody wear them.

Here are some commonly mentioned Baptist
Distinctives:

* Biblical authority
* Autonomy of the local church
* Priesthood of all believers
* Two ordinances (baptism and communion)
* Individual soul liberty
* Separation of Church and State
* Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon)

KJVO is not a Baptist Distinctive.
Individual soul liberty is a Baptist Distinctive.

I was called to minister to God's ministers
in 19
I was called to minister to God's ministers
on-line in 1984.
I never have been uncalled.
I am more likely to do nice stuff than bad stuff.


(I do feel like a fool cause what I though was
a clearly worded message seems to have
been totally misunderstood???)

Please read the O.P. (opening post) in this topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2394

before this discussion proceeds. Thank you.
I am a KJVO Type #2. What are you?

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(of which I am one):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

I am an Independant Baptist
I am a Fundamental Baptist
I am NOT a registered Independent Fundamental Baptist.

I would like to first say that I really do not understand the response that you are giving me here. I never said that KJVO was a Baptist Distinctive in my post.

Secondly I asked you to please explian the statement that I highlighted there is no explanation stated here. From your posts in the thread I was assuming you were not KJVO and I guess I was assuming too much. I do not understand how anyone would say they were from the "cult of ignorance", so I would think that meant you were not KJVO since you said that about KJVO.

You kindly asked me to do some things and I tried to the best of my ability to them. I am asking you to do the same and actually reply to my post. This post has many points that I have read and understood. What I do not understand is why my post was not adressed in your response.

I appreciate also your service to the Lord and your ministry. I know that we should give honor and respect to posters who are Pastors. But more so we should give more respect to scripture and the truth found within it.

I do not know what type of KJVO I am. If someone will direct me to a place where I can read the types I will be more than happy to state what # I am.

I would also hope that we could discuss this without assuming that someone is under conviction about anything said. Discussion is one thing but to imply that you have brought conviction into my heart is too weighty an assumption IMO. No one here can judge any one being convicted based on the tone of a post. ( If this was in jest then you can take that however you like.)

When I ask for the time I do not want the tempature ? But yet it feels a little warm in here ?

 

[4boys4joys]

I found the thread on different types of KJVO and I am a KJVO # 4. It was the closest I could find out of the 5 types given.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I found the thread on different types of KJVO and I am a KJVO # 4. It was the closest I could find out of the 5 types given.

Thank you, that will allow me to minister to you better.

BTW, another thing some minority of a minority preachers
mislead their people about is the failure to tell them
the Bapist principle of Soul Competency (you have to figure
out from God how He would have you walk) and the
fact: ALL Christian Baptists are called minister.
I know I'm an ordained Deacon - that is one of my ministries.

With a name like 4boys4joys - it is easy to see your ministry.
You have been called to raise four boys.
So when I pray for people I say something like:

May all God's best blessings flow this very day unto
Sister 4boys4joys, her family, and her ministry(ies).
May this be done so that we might give all the more
honor & glory unto our Blessed Lord & Savior:
Messiah Yeshua (Hebrew for Christ Jesus). Amen.

Said on another venue:
//But I do wonder if having this many versions creates confusion
in the eyes of the lost. It may not affect what they read but it could
affect the trust they have in what they read when there are
so many interpretations.//

Actually the many versions creates excuses for the
lost. This is due to confusion on the part of
A FEW (not all, maybe only 2-3%) individual Christians.
This is due to confusion on the part of A FEW
(not all, maybe only 1-2%) pastors. I've discovered
that many (not all, that is like 40% of 1-2% of pastors) of
the confused pastors (that is: many among the
very few) are WILLINGLY ignorant (not knowing)
by misguided understanding of the one
Bible they use. But their 'Fundamental' is
'the best preacher is one that the Holy Spirit tranied only'
i.e. NOT seminary trained. So these minority of a minority
of pastors are ignorant (not knowing) about
about translations. The minority of a minority
of pastors eschew Bible helps
like STRONG'S (refers back to the original language
but is mostly in English) and learning the original
languages: Hebrew & Greek.
This minority of a minority of pastors can't teach their
people about the Bible; they cover their tracks with
the the montra: "only one Bible is right - the 1611 KJB".
This makes that minority of a minority I'm talking about
of pastors look mighty foolish cause they
use a striped down KJV1769 Edition
NOT a KJV1611 Edition Reprint.

So yes, different versions in English causes some problems,
but not as many problems as does using
one English version only.

I believe as an axiom that the Holy Spirit will use multiple
studied versions of the Bible to help teach
the Bible to ALL Christians that can read English.
Two different translations add up to more information
that the Holy Spirit can teach any (100%) indivual.
If one's pastor witholds this information from one,
then that one is being deceived by that pastor --
the pastor has usurped the Holy Spirit's job.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I would like to first say that I really
do not understand the response that you
are giving me here. I never said that KJVO
was a Baptist Distinctive in my post.

Yes, that is obvious. I mentioned the
Baptist Distinctives because I was trying
to explaine my post that you didn't understand.

Did you figure out this message?
(I do feel like a fool cause what I though was
a clearly worded message seems to have
been totally misunderstood???)

I may be six or a dozen posts trying to explain
my first post. It was misunderstood on so
many levels. However, your responses tend
to prove what I said -- you didn't agree with it,
you couldn't, you didn't understand it.

I would hope that we could state our opinions
without generalizing and assuming that everyone
that believes something other than what you
see as truth with a one word phrase or group
with a certain mentality.

Actually I was trying to be very specific not general
at all.

Here is what I said again:

I personally think the KJVOs that come from what I like
to call "the no school School" or "the cult of ignorance"
who assume "no learning but direct from the Holy Spirit
can be used by the Lord to bless His Kingdom" --
those type KJVOs (and I suggest that is the minority
group, mostly the folks that can't last on BB over a fortnight),
don't even know enough to understand that
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS LOGICAL
or even what 'logical' means. But the brainer KJVOs
that can handle formal logic can posit their own
axioms (now called 'assumptions') and define their
own definitions from which they 'prove' their KJVO
doctrines (cause they don't come directly out of the
KJV).

//the KJVOs that come from what I like
to call "the no school School" or "the cult
of ignorance" ... //

That was very specific. I didn't say
"all Chrisitans"
"all Baptists"
"all KJVOs"
(these statements would have been general).
I was spicifically talking about people
who are KJVO and are anti-education.
People who eschew the fine Seminaries (where
one gets a PHD (Doctor of Philosophy /literally
'love of learning' / ) or equivalent, Bible and Secular Colleges
(where one gets a Master's Degree or Bachelors Degree).
In fact, I've seen some (not all) small number who
think Secondary (grades 7-12) education in the
public school put out the fires in a Christian.

I'm talking about a specific group of people
not a general group of people.

The humor of //"the no school School"// was
totally overlooked. 'School' refers to a group of
thought to which a group of people belong.
'school' means formal learning, 'no school' means
not formal learning.

Anyway, this minority of a minority preachers
that I'm talking about (a majority of that minority
are Baptists) appear to have substituted the
Fundamentals of Fundamentalist Christian
with a whole new, un-Biblical , illogical theorem/doctrine:

The ultra-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Anti-education (AKA: pro-ignorance)
3. Anti-success
4. Anti-female
5. Anti-alien (Hate of gay-boys, racism, etc.)

But I'm talking about a minority of a minority
Baptist Preachers that are leading their flocks
off the edge of the world.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is is an idea that comes from Set Theory
(it is called 'theory', but it is as much a
fact /or truth/ as anything that men have discovered about
the Universe that My God made).
Sets are just collections of things.
Set Theory is a part of Mathematics.
I'll show it's meaning for we Christians:

Any finite number of infine subsets can be
made from an infinite set.

A finite number is a number that can be counted.
An infinite number is a number that cannot be
counted, even if you have an eternity to count.
An infinite subset is a part of a set
that has an infinite number of elements in it.

Here is a finite set:
{all positive counting numbers less than 4}
= {1,2,3}

Here is an infinite set:
{all positive counting numbers}
= {1,2,3, ... x, x+1, X+2 ... }

/the ellipsis (...) denotes missing elements,
you just can't list all the elements in an
infinite set/

So there has been or will be a finite number
of real Romans 10:9-10 Christians.
But Eternity is endless - is a finite set
of what ever time units one wishes.

Here are some infinite sets:
{centuries spent with JESUS alone}
{centuries Ed spends with Sister 4boys4joys}
{centuries Sister 4boys4joys spends with her oldest boy*}

*I pray daily that this boy will become personally
saved by Messiah Yeshua.

We HAVE to LOVE our Christian brothers & sisters --
we are going to spend eternity with them.

 

[Ed Edwards]

New Age Versus Real Fundamental Christians

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Note the first one is about the Written Word of God,
the Holy Bible (AKA: Holy Scripture).
Note that #2 to #5 (the last four) are about
the Living Word of God, Messiah Jesus.
Notice that a person (even if He is a spiritual person)
is NOT the same as a Book (even if it is the
best book in the world).

To equate the Written Word of God and the Living
Word of God is a step away from the Fundamentals
of Christianity. To equate the Written Word of God
and the Living Word of God is a step toward
a NEW AGE belief.

The next step toward the NEW AGE belief concerning
the Holy Scripture is to use the Divine Bible
(third person of the Holy Trinity) as a divination device
and a fortune telling tool: i.e. using
some Bible Code on the King James Version 1769
Edition ONLY.

The Bible Codes are a direct violation of the ETERNAL
LAW OF GOD:

Deu 18:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his sonne, or his daughter
to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard,
or a Necromancer.
12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here, have a little logic:

------------------------------

OSAS Proof Text
The example of 'Reductio ad absurduem' in Hebrews 6:4-6:

Heb 6:4-6 (KJV1611 Edition):

For it is impossible for
those who were once inlightned,
and haue tasted of the heauenly gift,
and were made partakers of the holy Ghost,
5 And haue tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come;
6 If they shall fall away,
to renue them againe vnto repentance:
seeing they crucifie to themselues the Sonne of God afresh,
and put him to an open shame.

INTRODUCTION TO THE 'Reductio ad absurduem',
STATEMENT OF INTENTION:
For it is impossible for

THE TRUE PROPOSITIONS (STATEMENTS):
those who were once inlightned,
and haue tasted of the heauenly gift,
and were made partakers of the holy Ghost,
5 And haue tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come;

THE PROPOSITION (STATEMENT) TO BE PROVED FALSE:
6 If they shall fall away, to renue them againe vnto repentance:

THE THEN PORTION (THE CONCLUSION)
THAT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS THOSE IF PROPOSITIONS:
seeing they crucifie to themselues the Sonne of God afresh,
and put him to an open shame.

THE MISSING PARTS OF THE ARGUMENT:

Of course, it is obsurd that Jesus will not be crucified
again nor shamed. So the proposition to be proved
false:
6 If they shall fall away, to renue them againe vnto repentance:
has been proved, the saved cannot fall away from salvation.
Has been proved by 'Reductio ad absurduem'

However, I note about 1/3 of the New Testament is advice on
how to live like a Christ-one, act like a Christ-one, talk
like a Christ-one, be a Christ-one. So let us encourage one another
to walk like a Christian, talk like a Christian, hope like a Christian.

 

[Lions84]

In my sermon prep I use Geneva , KJV 1783, NIV and NASB and NASB update. I have also referred to the New Living Translation and the Net Bible. I use the KJV in my Nursing home ministry and NASB in my Pulpit Ministry.

 

[JFox1]

Here are three translations that are not on the list that I think should be invalid:

Ferrar Fenton Bible
The Clear Word Bible
The Word on the Street

YUK!