Jump to content
Online Baptist

The KJV and the Usage of Non-KJV's


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brethren,

One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.

Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).

After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.

The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.

Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 

Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.

Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.

Regards,

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree Bro. Alan. However, I think it's safe to say that many folks don't read the forum rules before posting. I don't say that as a justification; rather, it's intended more as a fact of life or a reality. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes NoNics, that's probably true, but it is also certainly not a hidden point.

Many moons ago, I mistakenly found my phone Bible set to some strange version, and when I was posting from there I had a few questions asked.

I don't even know how it happened, but it did. Fixed it as soon as it was pointed out.

But the reminder is a timely one.

I have to say also, that of late (the last two years in particular) we have had people specifically seeking a hymn singing, KJV preaching church.

And one of the new couples here who have been saved for many years but attending some other church for that time, have started using the KJV because our church does, and they have commented that "they are learning so much more since they started reading the KJV" - their exact words, unprompted. 

This is not stated as a proof of anything by the way, just as a record of what happened here a few weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you for your thoughts and discussions on the matter of the usage of the non-KJV versions in lieu of the KJV. I do appreciate the discussion on this important matter.

The "Guidelines" on OnLineBaptist are out in the open, very clear in meaning and clarity. In order to refresh our memories I will quote them below.

"3) Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion.
The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture."

In my estimation, after reading the posts of the recent individuals who used the non-KJV versions as their text, both individuals were intelligent in their postings, were knowledgeable in biblical matters, were knowledgeable in issues in the Christian realm, appeared knowledgeable in the different issues and common courtesy in discussions among brethren, their usage of the English language was good, both tried to get a specific point across that, in my eyes, they knew would cause a debate among the IFB brethren. I am of the opinion, please note the word "opinion," neither one of these brethren are new saints, are ignorant of current issues in the Christian realm, and had read the OnLineBaptist "guidelines" and knew its meaning. In my eyes, both of them were very familiar with the abbreviations of the different versions and deliberately did not post the copyrighted versions abbreviations of the scriptures as they knew most of the brethren here on OnLineBaptist would not accept them.

This is my opinion on the matter through an examination of the context, wording, and manner, of the two postings. I have based this opinion on my own observations. Of which, as I do not know the two brethren in a personal manner, nor do I know their names,  I will freely admit that my observations, and examination of the context of the postings, and conclusion, may be in error.

Either way, the usage of non-KJV versions on OnLineBaptist is set in stone. It is my opinion, I would like to request that the administration of OnLineBaptist would consider to add that the usage of any non-KJV passages has to include the version abbreviation as per the version copyright request.

Furthermore, if a person will read my posting on the Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, as with most other brethren, when I quote from a non-KJV version, I abbreviate the version that I use. This is in accordance to the copyright laws (not somebody's opinion), of the versions that I quote, it is common courtesy, and intellectual honesty.

Think about it.

In loving admonition,

Alan

Edited by Alan
added a phrase & changed a phrase
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
24 minutes ago, Alan said:

Furthermore, if a person will read my posting on the Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, as with most other brethren, when I quote from a non-KJV version, I abbreviate the version that I use. This is in accordance to the copyright laws (not somebody's opinion), of the versions that I quote, it is common courtesy, and intellectual honesty.

I made a reference to the Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, but I neglected to add a reference to that study.

Here is a link to that study. My usage of the New International Version, the NIV, are found on page 12. 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By BibleBeliever5
      Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.
       
      In Christ,
      Joseph
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...