Textual/version stance

[Jerry]

The TR - Textus Receptus - is what our KJV New Testament is translated from. Perhaps you are mixing the term up with something else. The Latin Vulgate is a Latin Text - the TR is Greek.

[Revelation3:20]

Right here in OH alone we have an IFB church called First Baptist Church, of Milford, OH. BEARING PRECIOUS SEED is the ministry that translates the KJV 1611 AV into various non-English speaking languages. I know for sure that they have printed the KJV 1611 AV in Arabic. They work diligently (day and night) printing the KJV 1611 AV into non-English speaking languages so that our IFB Missionaries can take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the "uttermost" parts of the earth. I have a friend who is 1/2 Japanese American. Her name is Sachiko. Her sister's name is Tomiko. She has 2 brothers with Japanese names as well. Her dad came to the USA from Japan when he was 15. As we speak...KJV 1611 AV Bibles are being have been translated for the Japanese people. They are being massed produced. Everything we have at our fingertips is in their hands as well. Dictionaries, Concordances, etc...If I spoke Japenese I most certainly I would NOT want to be robbed from God's precious Word. And, that my friend...is ONLY the KJV 1611 AV. Why should they get "sloppy seconds" when we have a "full course meal" so to speak? This is my point! Actually, it is the "pure" Word of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So are you saying there was no bible before 1611? If that is what you are saying you are ignorant of what your KJV "1611" teaches. I suspect what you use is the 1769 edition not the 1611, not many of those are made. You sound like someone who was exposed to ruckmanism as a new Christian and in your zeal and new found Christianity just accepted it as truth without actually studing it much. That KJV you hold contains every truth you need to bury ruckmanism once and for all. Just pray and study it. KJVO and ruckmanism are not synonyms. If you need any help this board is here for that very reason.

[Guest Guest]

Hey, let's all give her a break... she didn't know what the term "TR" even meant until she read this topic. She's new to OB, and probably hasn't been in a discussion exactly like this before.


Thanks, KJB_Princess. :smile You are right...I have never heard the term TR, but I have talked with a sister in Christ today, and I have "some" information on the topic. :thumb I will get more educated on this topic, now...for sure! After reading the last post from Revelation. I take "strong" offense to something said like that. The KJV 1611 AV is the ultimate authority in my mind...and, that is NOT coming from my mouth...but, the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ. To even think that some people on OB are even thinking of considering something else to replace the KJV 1611 AV in the future is beyond my comprehension.

I have never been in a discussion like this one before...that is correct. OB is the first site that I have been on. :smile



If we want to get into a discussion about the twisted stuff IFBs believe just because some guy wrote an article on the internet, we should get another thread started. I'm sure THAT would be fun! *cough*cloud*cough*

[Guest Guest]

The TR - Textus Receptus - is what our KJV New Testament is translated from. Perhaps you are mixing the term up with something else. The Latin Vulgate is a Latin Text - the TR is Greek.

Hello Jerry. :smile Yes, I am confusing the TR with the Latin Vulgate. Thank you for correcting this gross error that I made. :thumb When I heard the words, "Latin Vulgate" all I could think of were my lost RCC relatives and those already in hell. I know the history on the RCC, and the fact that Jerome penned the Latin Vulgate which in turn corrupted the Bible to all Catholic people, and many other people, as well, in the world. I also know that the RCC people "originally" had the Bible in Greek. :smile It is heartbreaking for me...to say the least, b/c these lost people are my family members, friends, former co-workers, and neighbors. Many don't have any idea of the vicious lie that Satan has them living under. I don't know if IFB's really understand how blessed they are. Thank you, brother.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

I found an internet site that says aliens are invading next year, better get to Wal-Mart and buy some squirt guns.

This kind of absurdity is what makes fundamentalists look wacky to other Christians. The TR is a fraud? Well then, Candlelight, your KJV is also a fraud.

Kevin...I would like to consider myself a Bible-believing Christian who takes a solid stand on the KJV 1611 AV. I am not a Fundamentalist. There is a big difference in the 2 terms.

Also, I tried to state this once or twice before about internet sites. I don't know if you were on that thread. You are right, they are NOT reliable. I get my knowledge from God's Holy Word...the KJV 1611 AV. This is taught in my IFB church. We don't substitute for anything but the complete truth!

candlelight

P.S. ~ I feel sad for you for saying what you said about the KJV. BTW, if you were in a RCC...and, you said something to them about their traditions (or anything inflammatory) they would make it a point to say you were being sacrilegious and, that is just for starters. Rahter, what you should be doing is thanking the Lord Jesus Christ for your IFB roots. :smile

[Guest Guest]

Hi OB members. :smile This is what I have found out so far about the TR - Textus Receptus. By and large, there are 2 families of Greek manuscripts. Right? The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with some small portions written in Aramaic. One of the manuscript families is the "Alexandrian", because the manuscripts originate in Alexandrian Egypt...and, as everyone knows, Egypt is a type of the world. BTW, I learned that these Alexandrian manuscripts are portions or fragments of the NT text. The other family is the "Antioch" line, because it came out of Asia Minor, which as I am full aware...is the location of the majority of the Apostle Paul's ministry, where they were first called Christians. The Antioch family, as I have been told, is by far the most faithful and accurate of these manuscripts. Since the late 1800's, the acceptance of the Alexandrian manuscripts has led to the overwhelming amount of corrupt Bible translations and the apostacy that is occuring in these last days. However, I have learned that the textual issue is a different story.

Texts (as you well know) are compilations of manuscripts, which are chosen for their consistency and agreement with one another. There are also 2 main texts: the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated for the most part, and, the "Critical Text", which was compiled from the corrupted Alexandrain manuscripts. So, what I have found is that the TR, in and of itself, isn't corrupt or bad at all (I apologize for my ignorance here). :ooops So, from what my sister in Christ has clarifed for me...when translating from another language, it is usually important to translate mostly from the TR, and compare the KJV Bible to that. I know that English is terribly difficult to translate into another language. This, I am VERY aware of, in fact. :frog However, it is critical that any foreign language Bible be in line with the KJV 1611 AV. This is my whole point on the matter.

This is also interesting to note: The KJV didn't always follow the available Antioch texts. I John 5:7...For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV 1611 AV. was not included in any manuscripts available at the time, and the only place that it was found was in the Latin Vulgate...the corrupt Bible of the RCC. God saw it fit somehow to have the AV committee include that portion, which later lays claim to the discovery of many Antioch-family manuscripts that included that passage. This to me...says that the KJV 1611 AV is God's pure and Holy word, and no one should mess with that.

She also informed me that while there are dozens of editions of the TR, every one of them is in Greek. BTW, what an education for me all in a period of one day. However, the use of the Greek language has become such a tool of Satan, but with that in mind...any Bible scholar can turn that around and defend the KJV 1611 AV. This is one thing that no one has EVER been able to dispute! BTW, my pastor sometimes will explain while he preaches...what a word means in English and what it means in Greek. My sister in Christ did inform me too, that people who are fluent in the Spanish language will understand the complications of translations. I know we have many people on OB that can speak Spanish. Well, with that being said, if it weren't for God we'd all be in much trouble. :thumb In His precious and Holy name.

candlelight

[Bakershalfdozen]

Well, with that being said, if it weren't for God we'd all be in much trouble. :thumb In His precious and Holy name.

And a hearty AMEN to that. :thumb

[kevinmiller]

Kevin...I would like to consider myself a Bible-believing Christian who takes a solid stand on the KJV 1611 AV. I am not a Fundamentalist. There is a big difference in the 2 terms.

Also, I tried to state this once or twice before about internet sites. I don't know if you were on that thread. You are right, they are NOT reliable. I get my knowledge from God's Holy Word...the KJV 1611 AV. This is taught in my IFB church. We don't substitute for anything but the complete truth!

candlelight

P.S. ~ I feel sad for you for saying what you said about the KJV. BTW, if you were in a RCC...and, you said something to them about their traditions (or anything inflammatory) they would make it a point to say you were being sacrilegious and, that is just for starters. Rahter, what you should be doing is thanking the Lord Jesus Christ for your IFB roots. :smile

The RCC? IFB'ers do the same thing if you challenge their traditions. lol
If you're IFB, you're supposed to just go with the flow, put on your best face so everyone sees you as you should look, not challenge what the pastor says or, heaven forbid, the Baptist distinctives and make sure your standards are at least nearly as high as the pastor's. Nah, I'm not going back to my "IFB roots."

[tired]

The teachings of the church at Rome leads to hell. The teachings of the IFB doesn't lead to hell. There are many IFB churches who are legalist but saying a women needs to wear a dress is not the same as having a "pope" that is the ultimate usurper of God. Holy father is the pope calling himself God the Father. The head of the church is the pope is the pope calling himself Jesus. The vicar of Christ is the pope calling himself the Holy Spirit. This alone is blasphemy and any who believe this there is no way they are saved. They are following a diferent god. The worst of the worst IFB preachers have never set themselves up as infallible. Haven't said the bread and blood is Jesus. The bad IFB pastors have added to the standards but this doesn't send someone to hell.

[tired]

Here is another thing, there are many camps that fall under IFB.Hyles, sword of the Lord, and different schools. The church at Rome has one dogma and catholic people and churches who do not follow all of the Vaticans dogma are not catholic and hence going to hell. There is no IFB pope who dictates to the IFB churches. Some IFB go by there own made up traditions and many go by the bible. All rcc churches are false.

[Guest Guest]

The RCC? IFB'ers do the same thing if you challenge their traditions. lol
If you're IFB, you're supposed to just go with the flow, put on your best face so everyone sees you as you should look, not challenge what the pastor says or, heaven forbid, the Baptist distinctives and make sure your standards are at least nearly as high as the pastor's. Nah, I'm not going back to my "IFB roots."

With all due respect, Kevin...I don't have any traditions. I left those behind in the RCC. I have the truth now...praise the Lord for my salvation. My pastor, ALWAYS, tells the flock NOT to take his word on it...but, rather the word of God. He challenges us to do that...ALL the time. :thumb Isn't that how it is supposed to be?

If you want to talk about going with the flow? Unfortunately, that is the RCC, not the IFB...you are talking about. I certainly don't understand how you could have become so hardened against the truth? Be thankful for what you have learned, then. I certainly would be jumping for joy!

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

And a hearty AMEN to that. :thumb

AMEN!

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

The teachings of the church at Rome leads to hell. The teachings of the IFB doesn't lead to hell. There are many IFB churches who are legalist but saying a women needs to wear a dress is not the same as having a "pope" that is the ultimate usurper of God. Holy father is the pope calling himself God the Father. The head of the church is the pope is the pope calling himself Jesus. The vicar of Christ is the pope calling himself the Holy Spirit. This alone is blasphemy and any who believe this there is no way they are saved. They are following a diferent god. The worst of the worst IFB preachers have never set themselves up as infallible. Haven't said the bread and blood is Jesus. The bad IFB pastors have added to the standards but this doesn't send someone to hell.

Bravo, brother. Legalism doesn't even come close to "having a pope that is the ultimate usurper of God". :thumb BTW, legalism runs rampant in the RCC. That is where it first began...and, it has unfortunetly bleed over into some of our IFB churches. The RCC is "blasphemy" and I have been prayfully and thankfully "rescued" out of the RCC. The IFB teachings are accurate, and teach/preach the word of God. The whole "Eucharist" in the RCC is cannibalism in itself.

Dear, Father please help these unfortunate RCC people and all lost souls to come to know the truth of your Holy word. Help us to be servants for you Lord Jesus, so that they may come to know you as "personal" Saviour. I promise to give you all the power, honour, glory, and praise. I ask this in the name of your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

candlelight

[John81]

Jerry,

Is it true that some or all of the exact texts those who put forth the KJB used are no longer available?

I read this somewhere and I can't remember where I read it. I also can't remember if they said some of the actual text used is no longer available or if they said all of the text they used is no longer available.

For some reason this hasn't been replied to yet so I though I would bump it up.

[Guest Guest]

For some reason this hasn't been replied to yet so I though I would bump it up.

Good question, John? :pray for someone to come on OB to let us know. Where are our IFB pastors?

candlelight