What is the KJ"B"

What "gives" is the NASV changing it's name the NASb.I call the Holy Bible the KJB myself. Whats the biggie???

 

It never was the NASV. Riplinger gave it that name to make her very convincing algebra work out.

No biggie. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

Bob, you're right. BrianT, you're right. MV-neverist....uh, never mind.

 

The KJB is not a version, except in the view of the mv's and the unlearned. Pre 1800, the KJB was and still is "The Holy Bible". (that ought to really get you "preference" dudes to hackling!)

The Authorized Version 1611 King James Bible usually gets some hackles going.

A "revision" BTW is NOT another version or translation, just an updating of spelling for the most part, can't say that about any mv.

On your marks! Get set! GO! Start hackling!

 

And there we have the answer to Dr. Bob's question.

 

You really need to do some reasearch in the history of some great preachers in the past;the "onlies" veiw was alive and well a lot earlier than the 1970s!

What are you trying to say about us Southerners?? It would seem that being a Bible believer is a "Southern thang." Thank God!!

 

Hmmm.... Sounds like a version to me!

Diane Tavegia

 

Hmmm.... Sounds like a version to me!

Diane Tavegia </font>[/QUOTE]Uh-oh! If I were a prophet I'd say "it" is on the brink of the horizon: "Then 'perversion' is accurate when talking about mv's". But I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but if my prediction is right, don't condemn me! (I don't know who it is I just quoted, but I'm sure it came from another quote regarding KJVO's by a "mv"ist. (Hey, I think I just invented a new word! "mv"ist, maybe a similar word: "mv"ism!

So then, the AV 1611 is right,i.e., the "Authorized" Version of The Holy Bible. That makes all the others un-authorized!

 

Um...what?

Ha ha, you just called it a "Version". Can't decide if it's a version or not?

You are correct. No other Bible was authorized by the fanciful King James I to be used in Anglican churches in England in the 17th century. Oh woe is me, my NIV doesn't hold that distinction.

 

Many of us already knew your words are unprophetable without your even admitting as much.

 

mv-ist may be a fitting label for MV proponents. But then so is also DE-ist for Dynamic Equivalency proponents. The latter was not a flattering title in past centuries.

Harald

 

Still isn't.

 

Many of us already knew your words are unprophetable without your even admitting as much. </font>[/QUOTE]Man, alcoot, where ya been old buddy? I thought I recognized an odor in this thread, you must be using a new cologne. But , hey, who am I to judge? It isn't working either, your disposition reeks !

"KJB" is the effort to console mvists. We understand their dilemma in trying to figure out which version is the Word of God, we don't want to be the ones to say,"I told you so", but I told you so!

(I feel the urge coming on again to "hijack" another thread, HELP!)

 

Um...what?

Ha ha, you just called it a "Version". Can't decide if it's a version or not?

You are correct. No other Bible was authorized by the fanciful King James I to be used in Anglican churches in England in the 17th century. Oh woe is me, my NIV doesn't hold that distinction. </font>[/QUOTE]When compared to "versions" the King James Bible is still The Holy Bible!

When defined as a translation it is a version, but that doesn't change the FACT! it's the AV1611. The Holy Bible.

At least King James I had enough God about him to establish a CORRECT rendering of the RIGHT texts!

The "niv"? HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

If I didn't have anything better than the niv I would go to a Bible bookstore and buy me a King James Bible!

"niv"? don't they give shots at the health clinic for things like that?

 

Some people may simply have grown up that way. I wrote to Donald Akenson (who grew up Swedish Baptist) to complain about his use of "KJB" in Saint Saul and Surpassing Wonder (both of which are well worth reading and neither of which is inerrantist, let alone KJVO-ist) and he simply replied that was what they called it when he was in Sunday School, and he's never seen any reason to change.

Personally, I was raised to write "KJV" and to comprehend "AV" as synonymous with it, although technically I suppose "AV" covers the whole gamut of Anglican-approved versions from KJV to NRSV with a temporary detour through the NEB...

I am accustomed to KJV (1611 and updates), RV (1881-85), ASV (1901), RSV, TEV, LB, NEB, NASB, CEV, NLB, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NAB, JB, NJB, and probably others.

BTW, I don't know of a customary abbreviation for any of the Catholic versions antecedent to the JB and the NAB (e.g. if I saw a reference to "DRV" I would scratch my head a bit before thinking "aha! Douay-Rheims!").

Haruo

 

If you read the King James Translators, i. e. the Preface to the AV1611, you'll find that they called their Translation a Version of the Bible...I implore all to read the Preface w/ an objective mind.
(formerly known as "RevKevin77")

 

Istherenotacause: "(I feel the urge coming on again to "hijack" another thread, HELP!) "

When this urge comes upon you, say a
HAIL MARY and a couple of OUR FATHERs
The urge should go away. Remember that
the urge will go away whether or not
you actually hijack another thread

May all God's blessings, full and rich,
fall unto Brother Istherenotacause this
very day and unto his family and his ministry.
May this be done that we might give all
the more honor and glory unto our blessed
Lord and Savior: Messiah Yeshua. Amen!

BTW, Messiah Yeshua is called Iesus in
the REAL KJB: the 1611 version
(and not those MVs KJV1769 and KJV1873).