KJV only debate

SumTinWong · Sep 21, 2004

Both Harper Collins and Zondervan have and do publish KJV Bibles as well.

SumTinWong · Sep 21, 2004

I did a search on Amazon for the Satanic Bible and came up with one written by the witch, Anton Szandor Lavey, and it is published in paperback by Avon books.

I found this interesting it is a quote from a reviewer of the book on the Amazon site:
"To start off I'm a Minister of the Lord - A Christian. I did read Anton's "Satanic Bible". I found it an interesting read, and read it so I could be a little more informed. To start with Man thrives on Hypocrisy - whether you are a Christian or Satanist. I didn't find Anton totally off base, and he had a few interesting points. "Choice" is an original gift from the Lord - He is the first one to say that a person can decide what it is they want to do. Satan didn't invent that. Most people like Satan and his works more than they would like to admit - some would argue to the death that it just isn't so. Satan has a way of shedding light on things mostly to a person's ultimate dismay. I would recommend that Christians inform themselves - The "Church of Satan" is a recognized religion in the United States. This book is worth a look at, and to have it in a religious study library. The Lord "Loved" us enough to let us go our own way. 2Timothy 3:1-5 "
[size=-1][font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font][/size]

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

@@Paul@@ said:
They also publish childrens books...

...so they must be OK.

I wasn't making any judgement calls on Harper Collins or Zondervan. Simply stating some facts.

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

Lollard said:
Both Harper Collins and Zondervan have and do publish KJV Bibles as well.

Zondervan publishes the following bibles:

New International Version
Today's New International Version
New International Reader's Version

King James Version
New American Standard Bible
The Amplified Bible
The Good News Translation
New Revised Standard Version
New American Bible

Harper Collins publishes the following bibles:

Contemporary English Version
English Standard Version
Good News Bible
King James Version
New Revised Standard Version

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

Lollard said:
I did a search on Amazon for the Satanic Bible and came up with one written by the witch, Anton Szandor Lavey, and it is published in paperback by Avon books.[size=-1][font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font][/size]

Avon books is also owned by Harper Collins.

Melbelle · Sep 21, 2004

JVD said:
I just came back to this thread and must make a correction of my post.... I should have said SOME KJVO churches break fellowship because of this. I apologize for hurting anyone by that mis-statement.

I have to say that in my experience many and perhaps most of the KJVO people I have met will not go to a church that uses another version from the pulpit. That is what I mean by breaking fellowship.

I do know many, many KJVO people, and have had many discussions on the subject. I still stand by the statement that many and perhaps most KJVO people are very strong on the subject. It is a very important doctrine to those who believe it. I am not talking about people who just happen to prefer the KJV but people who believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God for english speaking people.

I happen to live one block from such a church and it is actually part of their doctrinal statement.

Thanks for correcting your self, I will vist another church who doesn't use KJV but I want join one who doesn't use it. I want break fellowship just because of a bible that someone uses. That would be silly.

TwinCrier · Sep 21, 2004

sobresaliente said:
Maybe someone would be so kind as to supply some comparisons to other Bible versions.Sobresaliente

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

JVD · Sep 21, 2004

So...do those of you here who are KJVO actually believe that the KJV is God's inspired word for english speaking people? Every jot and title?

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

TwinCrier said:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

If you believe the Textus Receptus (based on manuscripts dating from the 12th century) is a more accurate reflection of the originals, then those verses appear to be omissions.

If you believe that the Nestle-Aland Greek and Hebrew source (based on manuscripts dating from the 4th century in addition to the ones used by the Textus Receptus) is a more accurate reflection of the originals, then those verses appear to be additions.

However, the appearance of an addition or an omission does not necessarily mean it was. Most modern translations will include a footnote of the omitted verses indicating that it is only found in later manuscripts. It is also important to note that most of these differences do not have doctrinal impact to core Christian doctrines.

Melbelle · Sep 21, 2004

JVD said:
So...do those of you here who are KJVO actually believe that the KJV is God's inspired word for english speaking people? Every jot and title?

I have seen a copy of the original bible but I do believe the kjv is close, no I don't believe it is cover to cover but I do believe is is awfully close.

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

sethsmommy said:
I have seen a copy of the original bible but I do believe the kjv is close, no I don't believe it is cover to cover but I do believe is is awfully close.

By original bible, I assume you are referring to the Greek compilation of the NT called the Textus Receptus that Erasmus originally compiled in 1519 with a final revision in 1535. It was based on greek manuscripts from the Eastern Orthodox Church dating around the 12th century.

The first edition of the King James Version in 1611 used the 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus as its source for the NT and the Masoretic Text as its source for the OT.

As I've said in previous posts, the KJV is an amazing translation that has been invaluable to the english speaking world. Erasmus' work on the Textus Receptus has been equally invaluable. I don't want you to think that I am in any way trying to discredit the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

SumTinWong · Sep 21, 2004

At the risk of sounding redunant, what was the final authority of English speaking people, pre-1611?

BBAS 64 · Sep 21, 2004

Lollard said:
At the risk of sounding redunant, what was the final authority of English speaking people, pre-1611?

Good day, Lollard

I would say there were 2, the one used by the King james translators and refered to by them would be the Bishops bible and the Geneva bible.

Peace to u,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Sep 21, 2004

Gold Dragon said:
By original bible, I assume you are referring to the Greek compilation of the NT called the Textus Receptus that Erasmus originally compiled in 1519 with a final revision in 1535. It was based on greek manuscripts from the Eastern Orthodox Church dating around the 12th century.

The first edition of the King James Version in 1611 used the 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus as its source for the NT and the Masoretic Text as its source for the OT.

As I've said in previous posts, the KJV is an amazing translation that has been invaluable to the english speaking world. Erasmus' work on the Textus Receptus has been equally invaluable. I don't want you to think that I am in any way trying to discredit the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

Good Day, Gold dragon

Nicely put. I do have question if the TR is dated as you postedthen what did the ECF such as Ambrose, Justin, Augustine use in their work on the NT? As far as the OT we know they used the Septuigaint [sp].

Peace to u,

Bill

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Gold dragon

Nicely put. I do have question if the TR is dated as you postedthen what did the ECF such as Ambrose, Justin, Augustine use in their work on the NT? As far as the OT we know they used the Septuigaint [sp].

Peace to u,

Bill

Great question Bill. I don't believe we know the NT sources for the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Yes, the Septuagint (LXX) was the OT for the ECFs.

My guess would be that Justin Martyr used copies of the letters circulating around the Christian church during that period. Especially since there was no authoritative NT canon at the time. By the time of Ambrose and Augustine, the canon was much more accepted and probably the NT letters were gradually incorporated into the LXX resulting in the uncial codices we currently have preserved. Since it was all in greek and most literate people read greek and latin, it was simply a matter of carrying more books/scrolls. Of course this is simply my guess and it may have been totally different.

Wikipedia: Biblical Canon

Christian New Testament
When Christianity began, it had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint and relied on the oral tradition of what Jesus Christ had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125).

By the end of the 1st century, the letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and they were known to Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (died 117), and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 115).

The first person to propose a definitive, exclusive canon of Christian scriptures was Marcion of Sinope, c. 150. He accepted only the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul's epistles. He rejected the entire Old Testament, the other three Gospels, the book of Acts and the epistles of Peter and John. From the books he did accept, he removed any passages that connected Christianity with Judaism. This was because Marcion believed that the God of the Jews who gave them the Law was an entirely different god than the Supreme God who sent Jesus Christ and inspired the New Testament scriptures. By editing the books he accepted, he thought he was removing judaizing corruptions and recovering the 'original' inspired words of the text. Marcion's canon and theology were soundly rejected as heretical; however, he forced the Church to consider which texts were scriptural and why. Marcion spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism, a form of Gnostic Christianity.

...

SumTinWong · Sep 21, 2004

Here is a pretty good site on the subject.
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

Gold Dragon · Sep 21, 2004

Lollard said:
Most of them used Jeromes' translation of the Bible in Latin.

Here is a pretty good site on the subject.

The Vulgate was completed in 405.

Of the three ECFs mentioned by BBAS 64, only Augustine was alive at the time and in the last 25 years of his life.

SumTinWong · Sep 21, 2004

My bad. I did change it before you responded, because I wasn't quite sure.

verismo · Sep 21, 2004

Where are all the "if it ain't a 1611 AV it ain't a Bible" folks? I've seen them on the board before.

@@Paul@@ · Sep 21, 2004

verismo said:
Where are all the "if it ain't a 1611 AV it ain't a Bible" folks? I've seen them on the board before.

I'm sure they're around...

If the english could spell, the 1611 would be great!!!

KJV only debate

Living with BPD

Living with BPD

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Deadheadmakeup

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

JVD

Guest

Senior Veteran

Deadheadmakeup

Senior Veteran

Living with BPD

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Living with BPD

Senior Veteran

Living with BPD

Regular Member

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency