• 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 We Use The KJV

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jbh28

Active Member
TCassidy said:
Okay, but remember, you asked! :D

1 Cor 1:18 is an example.

KJV: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NKJV: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The Present Passive Participle in Greek functions much like a "state of being" verb in English. It has no temporal significance, but merely indicates a state of being. The way the NKJV and many other of the more modern versions, translates it seems to indicate a continuing action rather than a state of being. It obfuscates the nature of salvation being an instantaneous event in time and makes it appear as if it is a process.

Did that help? :)
Click to expand...

Just remember that salvation is more than just justification/regeneration. We are saved(justification) being saved (sanctification) and will be saved (glorification). This doesn't mean we can't say that we are saved. When we say "I'm saved" we are referring to justification. We are saved from the penalty and bondage of sin. We are being saved from the power of sin, and we will be saved from the presence of sin.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
jbh28 said:
Just remember that salvation is more than just justification/regeneration. We are saved(justification) being saved (sanctification) and will be saved (glorification). This doesn't mean we can't say that we are saved. When we say "I'm saved" we are referring to justification. We are saved from the penalty and bondage of sin. We are being saved from the power of sin, and we will be saved from the presence of sin.
Click to expand...
"Just remember" the three rules of understanding your bible:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

Oh, and did I mention Context?

:)
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
TCassidy said:
Okay, but remember, you asked! :D

1 Cor 1:18 is an example.

KJV: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NKJV: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The Present Passive Participle in Greek functions much like a "state of being" verb in English. It has no temporal significance, but merely indicates a state of being. The way the NKJV and many other of the more modern versions, translates it seems to indicate a continuing action rather than a state of being. It obfuscates the nature of salvation being an instantaneous event in time and makes it appear as if it is a process.

Did that help? :)
Click to expand...
Yes! I understand now. Thanks. :)
 
J

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
For as long as I can remember, we always spoke of salvation in the sense that we are saved, we are being saved and we will be ultimately saved. It didn't mean that there were different salvations, just various experiences as we journey along life's path. All part of the perseverance of the saints.

Cheers,

Jim
 
T

TomVols

New Member
TCassidy said:
Why I use the KJV?

1. I like it.
2. Most of the congregation uses it.
3. I like it.
4.. Our pew bibles are KJV.
5. I like it.

Did I mention I like it? :)
Click to expand...
Your post just contained 198 times more truth than the tripe in this blog/site :)

I like it. I have some concerns about how it translates certain Greek verb tenses that might give a neophyte the false impression that salvation is not punctilliar, but with the proper explanation from the teacher/pastor it can be corrected.
Click to expand...
Of course salvation is that. However, it is a work in progress also. And the fact that the lost are depicted as perishing is true.
 
S

sag38

Active Member
When I use the KJV it's because I want to not because of the same old tripe the KJVOnlyist shovel out.
 
J

jbh28

Active Member
TCassidy said:
"Just remember" the three rules of understanding your bible:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

Oh, and did I mention Context?

:)
Click to expand...

Yes. A teacher at school used to say that all the time. He joked on time that if you didn't know the answer, just put context as the answer and you might be right. :)


TCassidy said:
Why I use the KJV?

1. I like it.
2. Most of the congregation uses it.
3. I like it.
4.. Our pew bibles are KJV.
5. I like it.

Did I mention I like it? :)
Click to expand...
And btw, some excellent reasons to use the KJV. My church uses the KJV too. The KJV is a very good translation.
 
P

Phillip

<b>Moderator</b>
We believe the King James Version is the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God. We believe the same scriptures that the 1st century churches possessed are the same scriptures we have today. This is one of the most important messages that will be given in this church.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with this statement. Is one of the important messages that will be given by a Church of Jesus Christ be which translation of the Bible to use? I would think the gospel of Jesus Christ would be a greater issue to be one of the most important message; among others related to missions, etc.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
We believe the King James Version is the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God. We believe the same scriptures that the 1st century churches possessed are the same scriptures we have today. This is one of the most important messages that will be given in this church.
Click to expand...

Actually that is a quite imprecise (and misleading) statement-

1) None of the first century Churches had a KJV.

2) None of them possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures- the New Testament was not even canonized until 300 A.D. at the earliest.

3) The first century churches had the apostles themselves to guide them even in the absence of a "Bible".
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Mexdeaf said:
2) None of them possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures- the New Testament was not even canonized until 300 A.D. at the earliest.
Click to expand...
It matters not when the church of Rome got around to recognizing the canon. The early churches already accepted the writings as canon as they were being distributed. To not recognize the canon as finished until the Council of Nicea is to allow an apostate organization to determine our belief. If you accept the decision of Nicea regarding the canon do you also accept the decision of Trent? :)
 
D

dwmoeller1

New Member
TCassidy said:
It matters not when the church of Rome got around to recognizing the canon. The early churches already accepted the writings as canon as they were being distributed. To not recognize the canon as finished until the Council of Nicea is to allow an apostate organization to determine our belief. If you accept the decision of Nicea regarding the canon do you also accept the decision of Trent? :)
Click to expand...

Nicea represented the whole of orthodox Christianity. Trent represented only the Catholic portion. Comparing the two councils is misleading at best.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
dwmoeller1 said:
Nicea represented the whole of orthodox Christianity. Trent represented only the Catholic portion. Comparing the two councils is misleading at best.
Click to expand...
300 out of 1800 is hardly "the whole." And, of course, that has nothing at all to do with my point. I will dumb it down for you if you so require.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
TCassidy said:
It matters not when the church of Rome got around to recognizing the canon. The early churches already accepted the writings as canon as they were being distributed. To not recognize the canon as finished until the Council of Nicea is to allow an apostate organization to determine our belief. If you accept the decision of Nicea regarding the canon do you also accept the decision of Trent? :)
Click to expand...

Ok then, Doctor Cassidy, would you accept the statement, "None of them (First Century Churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures."

I appreciate your corrections.
 
W

Winman

Active Member
Mexdeaf said:
Ok then, Doctor Cassidy, would you accept the statement, "None of them (First Century Churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures."

I appreciate your corrections.
Click to expand...

How do you know what they had? Perhaps some churches had a complete copy of the New Testament. There is no way to know what individual churches had in their possession.
 
F

franklinmonroe

Active Member
Winman said:
How do you know what they had? Perhaps some churches had a complete copy of the New Testament. There is no way to know what individual churches had in their possession.
Click to expand...
If John's Apocalypse was not written until about 90AD then it would near impossible for any 1st century churches to have a complete canonical New Testament; considering the 'technology' available for publishing and distribution at the time it would have been a tremendous feat to construct even a few complete NTs before 200AD (and with periods of persecution these Christian activities could not be executed in the open). Surviving documents do not testify to complete NTs before 4th century, I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top