Members teylacarter91 Posted March 29, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 Wycliffe translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was then hand-copied & distributed. It was so successful that there are nearly 200 copies in museums.You might find it difficult to read, even when type-set:JN 3:16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. The English reformation effectively began with Wycliffe, 150 years before Luther. I figured the language from Wycliffe would be different, given the time it was written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Annie Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only? They aren't. It's a misconception that all Independent Baptists are KJVO. I'm an Independent Baptist, and I am not KJVO. Neither are literally thousands of other IB's that I am aware of. The KJVO position is relatively new...It was not part of historic fundamentalism. Edited March 29, 2012 by Annie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 They aren't. It's a misconception that all Independent Baptists are KJVO. I'm an Independent Baptist, and I am not KJVO. Neither are literally thousands of other IB's that I am aware of. The KJVO position is relatively new...It was not part of historic fundamentalism. While that's true, there are many who will argue greatly against this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 I have been doing a lot of studying and I have found that the KJB was not the first Bible to be translated to English. Wycliffe (1382) Tyndale (1526) Coverdale (1535) Matthew (1537) Great Bible (1539) Geneva (1560) Bishops (1568) Douai-Rhemis (1582-1610) King James (1611) So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only? I do not want to sound rude or discredit anyone... I am simply curious. I don't know how much time you're willing to dedicate to your answer, it could take a long....time. Just because the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists doesn't mean you can't find God's word contained in them. However, there must have been some reason for objecting to the newer versions back in the early 20th Century. So, I'll err on the side of caution and stick with what was used in early fundamentalism, the KJV. You're not sounding rude or discrediting, your curiosity is welcome. It seems to be a deep concern for you. Why don't you and your husband pray earnestly together about this, seek God's will, and come to a decision. teylacarter91 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Annie Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I don't know how much time you're willing to dedicate to your answer, it could take a long....time. Just because the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists doesn't mean you can't find God's word contained in them. However, there must have been some reason for objecting to the newer versions back in the early 20th Century. So, I'll err on the side of caution and stick with what was used in early fundamentalism, the KJV. You're not sounding rude or discrediting, your curiosity is welcome. It seems to be a deep concern for you. Why don't you and your husband pray earnestly together about this, seek God's will, and come to a decision. I agree that studying out the text issues does take time. To whom are you referring when you say "earliest fundamentalists"? I'm not aware that fundamentalists as a group "decried" the modern versions at any time. Edited March 29, 2012 by Annie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 I agree that studying out the text issues does take time. To whom are you referring when you say "earliest fundamentalists"? I'm not aware that fundamentalists as a group "decried" the modern versions at any time. Annie, "the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists." R.A. Torrey, Franklin Johnson, Bettex, James Orr, Sir Robert Anderson, George Frederick Wright, et al. Please note I said process. See Fundamentals of The Christian Faith Ed. R.A. Torrey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 29, 2012 Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 R.A. Torrey was not KJO. Neither was Rice or many other past Fundamentalists. One source to check out:http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf There are plenty of footnotes with sources cited for further study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 R.A. Torrey was not KJO. Neither was Rice or many other past Fundamentalists. One source to check out:http://www.dbts.edu/..._2/nonissue.pdf There are plenty of footnotes with sources cited for further study. I never said he was KJO but, he did have issues with their processing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Go with the Bible that has produce the most and best fruit. I can't see how you can argue against the KJV in this department. There has to come a time when you settle on some version of the bible, any version, and tell yourself this is the word of God without error. As far as I know that only bible that anyone claims this of is the KJV. If you don't get this settled in your heart and allow every theological and linguistic argument throw you off course and bring doubt in your heart you will never be stablished in the faith. You can't look back at men like John R. Rice and such and say "well, they didn't believe that the KJV was without error" and they turned out to be good, godly men. That was a different time and era and the purity of bible was not being attacked as it is today especially by Christian scholars themselves. Arguements like, "Where was the pure word of God before 1611?" or "What about all the revisions of the KJV? or even a question like the OP's question will only lead to more questions and an even more endless cycles of questions that will never get satisfactorly answered. Indeed, they are not asked to get answered but asked only to create doubt. It's best to just stick with the book that has proven itself for the last 400 years. Edited March 30, 2012 by Wilchbla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members swathdiver Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 I love reading both NIV and KJB. The NIV was written by some gnostics and a militant lesbian among others. It's root is rotten as it comes from the Alexandrian texts via the gnostic/socialists Wescott and Hort. One cannot learn the doctrines of Christ properly by reading and studying the corrupt NIV. The NIV was the bible that was in my hands every day for three years after my salvation. I was awash in all manner of error with the modern-charismatics until the Holy Spirit burdened me to study the different translations. It's been two years since I became a member of one of Jesus Christ's New Testament churches and a faithfull reader of the King James Bible. As others have said, I learned the doctrines we're supposed to follow very quickly with the King James but still struggle to de-program myself from the rotten and corrupt NIV text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 30, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 The NIV was written by some gnostics and a militant lesbian among others. It's root is rotten as it comes from the Alexandrian texts via the gnostic/socialists Wescott and Hort. One cannot learn the doctrines of Christ properly by reading and studying the corrupt NIV. The NIV was the bible that was in my hands every day for three years after my salvation. I was awash in all manner of error with the modern-charismatics until the Holy Spirit burdened me to study the different translations. It's been two years since I became a member of one of Jesus Christ's New Testament churches and a faithfull reader of the King James Bible. As others have said, I learned the doctrines we're supposed to follow very quickly with the King James but still struggle to de-program myself from the rotten and corrupt NIV text. I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV, I have taught from it and I have clearly seen Gods work done by using the NIV. I do not read it as much, as my husband and I chose to go with King James. But as I said... Gods work is not bound by what translation we use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV, I have taught from it and I have clearly seen Gods work done by using the NIV. I do not read it as much, as my husband and I chose to go with King James. But as I said... Gods work is not bound by what translation we use. I know some solid Christians who mostly use the NIV so I know God can work through it, but I don't know how because to me the NIV has always seemed like very watered down tea, at best. For serious growth in the Lord, I don't think anything is better than the KJB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teylacarter91 Posted March 30, 2012 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 I know some solid Christians who mostly use the NIV so I know God can work through it, but I don't know how because to me the NIV has always seemed like very watered down tea, at best. For serious growth in the Lord, I don't think anything is better than the KJB. I think as long as we use the Bible that we feel God is leading us to then that should settle any and all arguments about what translation is "better" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members swathdiver Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV, It's ok to be wrong. The Lord says his Word will not return void. There is truth in the NIV but the overall translation is corrupt and therefore should be rejected and discarded because of the doctrine of separation at the very least. By using a translation written by homosexuals and gnostics one is ignoring the doctrine and commandment to separate from the world. 1John2:15-17 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 30, 2012 Members Share Posted March 30, 2012 I think as long as we use the Bible that we feel God is leading us to then that should settle any and all arguments about what translation is "better" It's not that simple. One can't look at the dozens of different versions, all disagreeing with on another on various points, and believe they are all equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.