The KJV and the Usage of Non-KJV's

[Alan]

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 March 15, 2018 by Alan
grammer

[No Nicolaitans]

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. 

 

[DaveW]

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.

[Alan]

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 March 16, 2018 by Alan
added a phrase & changed a phrase

[Alan]

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