Anti-Alexandrian
Member
It has everything to do with it.But,if you want to follow 1 Corinthians 14:38,go right on. Your at liberty.
-
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!
Why AKJV only?
- Thread starter Alexandra Spears
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Sister Alexandra Spears:
Which of thest three KJUVs do you prefer?
the authorized KJV1611
the unauthorized KJV 1769
the unauthorized KJV 1873
I like the KJV1611 best because it has better
translator notes. in fact, frequently KJVs
don't bother to tell which version of the KJV
they are. But after awile you expect KJVO
shortsightedness to show
BTW, I have a copy of each of these three KJVs
right on my comptuer hutch so i can reference
them at will.
At least my 1873 version says it is an 1873
version AND has the translation notes of
the the 1611 translators.
My 1769 translation does NOT say it is a KJV1769
nor does it have the translation notes.
I did a survey on another board about
which KJV folks used. Here were the replies:
1873 - 14%
1769 - 32%
1611 - 14%
Say what? - 40%
Which of thest three KJUVs do you prefer?
the authorized KJV1611
the unauthorized KJV 1769
the unauthorized KJV 1873
I like the KJV1611 best because it has better
translator notes. in fact, frequently KJVs
don't bother to tell which version of the KJV
they are. But after awile you expect KJVO
shortsightedness to show
BTW, I have a copy of each of these three KJVs
right on my comptuer hutch so i can reference
them at will.
At least my 1873 version says it is an 1873
version AND has the translation notes of
the the 1611 translators.
My 1769 translation does NOT say it is a KJV1769
nor does it have the translation notes.
I did a survey on another board about
which KJV folks used. Here were the replies:
1873 - 14%
1769 - 32%
1611 - 14%
Say what? - 40%
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Grammer lesson:
should be "You're at liberty".
Hey, MV-neverist
MVs do you use?
1) KJV1769
2) KJV1873
If the KJV you use hides the edition
that you use, i can show you how to tell
the difference, and yes, they are different.
Yet another baseless charge. No one has yet to show these twisted doctrines. It is untrue to say that MVs distort doctrine.
And 2 Cor 2:17 has nothing to do with the Bible version issue. That is just another place where KJVOs twist Scripture to fit their own conclusions. </font>[/QUOTE]Study it again! If you disagree with me, fine with me -- no plm! However you make the Satan very jubilant! You need to study the story between Antioch and Alexandria in the New Testament. If you are reluctant to study about that, too bad!
It has everything to do with it.But,if you want to follow 1 Corinthians 14:38,go right on. Your at liberty. </font>[/QUOTE]MVN,
You never study the Scripture it appears. The only thing you study is the writings of men. No one can rightly say that 1 cor 2:17 or 1 Cor 14:38 has anything to do with the KJV. The point of 1 Cor 2:17 is that some were corrupting the message of Scripture in order to gain a following. That immediately and without any possibility of contradictions rules out applying that verse to modern translations. It could rightly be applied to the health and wealth preachers, the easy believism preachers, etc. But it cannot be applied to modern translations without raping the text.
To cite 1 cor 14:38 is more laughable than the first. You are not speaking revelation from God. Therefore I am perfectly right to ignore your false statements, or to correct them so that others are not mislead by them.
You treat Scripture like it is nothing. You need to raise your view of Scripture and use it as God intended it. Quit twisting it to support your own doctrine.
I have many times. It simply does not address the Bible version issue. To try to make it address that issue is a misuse of Scripture.
If you came and sat in my church for a week or so you would change your tune real quick. This is a silly statement to make on your part.
I am not reluctant to study that at all. Because I have studied it, I know that this antioch/alexandria line of argumentation is but another twisting of Scripture to support a preconceived notion. Scripture teaches nothing of the sort. I have studied it; I know the truth. If you would study Scripture and quit following men, you would be quickly freed from these false notions and you would find room for tremendous growth in the truth of God's word. Oh how I wish that would happen.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
This statement is also NOT true.
I have never seen the KJV attacked. I've seen KJVers who can't back up their heresies attacked. And well it should be.
RaptureReady
New Member
Matthew 19:17. Why is the modern versions different from the King James. Do they not believe that Jesus is good?
BTW Edifier, there is not scripture meaning loss between the 1611, 1769, 1783 King James Bibles.
BTW Edifier, there is not scripture meaning loss between the 1611, 1769, 1783 King James Bibles.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Of course you don't see it.Romans 11:8
Alexandra Spears
New Member
The NIV is a prime example of heresy. It denies Christ's deity. It DELETES Scripture, which is a huge no-no.
Of course you don't see it.Romans 11:8 </font>[/QUOTE]This verse in context (which you frequently ignore) deals with salvation not Bible versions... unless you are linking John's salvation to his beliefs about KJVOnlyism?
John and I disagree on things far more important and substanative than this issue... in fact, we disagree on several important issues. However, John's salvation is not dependent on agreeing with my opinions nor interpretations. As far as I am aware, he and I have dealt with our differences openly, honestly, and without allowing pride to get in the way.
If you are implying that he is unsaved because he disagrees with you on this issue then you have more significant doctrinal issues to deal with than which Bible to use. If this is simply another case of you taking scripture out of context and twisting it to fit your purposes then you should be ashamed.
No it isn't. Check a dictionary for the meaning of "heresy".
No it doesn't. Check a dictionary for the meaning of "denies". Also, compare Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 between the NIV and KJV and tell me what you find.
Actually, it just deletes the things that the KJV *added* to scripture, which is a huge no-no.
Alexandra Spears said:
The NIV is a prime example of heresy. It denies Christ's deity. It DELETES Scripture, which is a huge no-no.
The NIV deny the deity of Christ? It is the English translation that is clearest on the deity of Christ.
Alexandra's post is exactly the sort of nonsensical hoo-hah that comes from uncritical KJV-onlyists who simply regurgitate a whole bunch of poppycock from false teachers and never bother doing the homework for themselves.
The NIV is a prime example of heresy. It denies Christ's deity. It DELETES Scripture, which is a huge no-no.
The NIV deny the deity of Christ? It is the English translation that is clearest on the deity of Christ.
Alexandra's post is exactly the sort of nonsensical hoo-hah that comes from uncritical KJV-onlyists who simply regurgitate a whole bunch of poppycock from false teachers and never bother doing the homework for themselves.