A new ONLYism?

HE stated nothing against digital Bibles, but that he preferred the hard copy.  What's the big deal about that?  e-books are great, but the hard copies are still being sold in large enough volume to keep thousands and thousands of book stores open.

Myself, I love e-books for study or personal reading.  I use e-sword extensively.  Still, I like my old hard-copy for many of the same reasons he listed.  Primarily, I can trace my Christian life through my old Bible.  Hard to do with e-sword, or even a new Bible that was just given to me (even though it is the same printer with the same layout as my old).
 
admin said:
He has some interesting things to say. I understand that some need to have a loose-leaf Bible. Technology can be a bit cumbersome for the previous generation.

As for me... I want all of my Bibles available on my Samsung Galaxy with Logos installed. These newfangled churches get SOOOOOO confusing with all of the different versions they use, I cannot keep up! hehehehe
Click to expand...

If only we could all agree upon one text....................  ;D
 
[quote author=Binaca Chugger]If only we could all agree upon one text....................  ;D
[/quote]

LOLCat?
 
admin said:
Binaca Chugger said:
If only we could all agree upon one text....................  ;D
Click to expand...

NIV! :D

My SS teacher uses a version I cannot figure out. I have not asked him. I am just trying to find it :D
Our pastor uses New Century Version, NIV.

With overhead projectors these days, everyone has the same text.
Click to expand...

Except for those that preach screens are of the debil...
 
I wonder what these sentimental ones were saying when Johannes Gutenberg used movable type to mechanically print the Vulgate in the 1450s?


He surely is the one most responsible for the mass production and spreading of the Word of God using printing since the 1450s.

In our time the Word of God is spread digitally with phone apps and Bible software.

Bible.org and others like them are the Johannes Gutenbergs of our modern era.
 
bgwilkinson said:
I wonder what these sentimental ones were saying when Johannes Gutenberg used movable type to mechanically print the Vulgate in the 1450s?


He surely is the one most responsible for the mass production and spreading of the Word of God using printing since the 1450s.

In our time the Word of God is spread digitally with phone apps and Bible software.

Bible.org and others like them are the Johannes Gutenbergs of our modern era.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you, but the only way you'd know i did, is if I post in on the Forum...
Using my droid.
Which has the Bible ...
Tyndale
Wycliff
Darby
Kjv
Anishnaabemowin
Navajo
Cherokee
So, yeah, id be a hypocrite.

Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
bgwilkinson said:
I wonder what these sentimental ones were saying when Johannes Gutenberg used movable type to mechanically print the Vulgate in the 1450s?


He surely is the one most responsible for the mass production and spreading of the Word of God using printing since the 1450s.

In our time the Word of God is spread digitally with phone apps and Bible software.

Bible.org and others like them are the Johannes Gutenbergs of our modern era.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you, but the only way you'd know i did, is if I post in on the Forum...
Using my droid.
Which has the Bible ...
Tyndale
Wycliff
Darby
Kjv
Anishnaabemowin
Navajo
Cherokee
So, yeah, id be a hypocrite.

Anishinaabe
Click to expand...

LOL
 
admin said:
prophet said:
Tyndale
Wycliff
Darby
Kjv
Anishnaabemowin
Navajo
Cherokee
So, yeah, id be a hypocrite.

Anishinaabe
Click to expand...

That's an interesting list. What are the Indian versions based on? Were they translated from the Textus Receptus, UBS or from an English Bible?
Click to expand...

The Indian versions are the most accurate - they  are the code talkers, after all.  8)
 
Little more research shows this guy is an IFBx KJVO.

He is an employee of Trinity Baptist College, Arlington, TX.



They say they use the AV 1611. I seriously doubt that.


If they had a guest preacher who said, "Today I'm speaking on Daniel and dragon slaying. Please

turn in your genuine authentic unmutilated AV1611 Bibles to the book of Bel and the Dragon

1:23-27 for our scripture reading today", They would dismiss him with extreme prejudice.


Link to genuine authentic unmutilated AV1611 for the Bible reading.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1157



What they say they believe.

"We believe that the Holy Bible was divinely inspired by God and given to man as the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man. By the Holy Bible, we mean that collection of sixty-six books (Genesis to Revelation) of the Old and New Testaments, which we believe is the very Word of God. We believe that since inspiration without preservation would be meaningless, and the original manuscripts of the Bible are no longer in existence, God has supernaturally and providentially preserved His Word, without error, for us today in the AV 1611 (King James Version) of the Bible. We believe that this preserved Bible is the final authority for us in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. Finally, we believe that Christians should not only believe the Book, but also do what it commands and teaches."


I thought I recognized KJVO talking points in what he wrote.

Well there you go, another KJVO.
 
I use three different Bible apps - one for reading through a plan, one for listening or listening while reading, one for daily Proverbs plus a quick search when trying to find a verse I'm trying to think of in conversation.  Through these methods, I try to completely go through the Bible 2-3 times a year.   

But for my good old-fashioned Bible study, I prefer my old Thompson Chain Reference Bible and a pen and notebook.  I remember much more of personal Bible study when I write it long-hand, underline, make notes in the margin, etc. 

I think he makes some very valid points in the article.  My mother passed away almost two years ago.  I have her most recent Bible.  It is a trim line one that I got for her one Christmas.  As she aged, the regular sized Bibles sometimes were too heavy.  I sometimes - usually when I wish I could give her a call - pull her Bible off my piano and just look at some of her handwritten notes and I praise God for my goodly and godly heritage. 

I don't want my children or grandchildren to think of mom or Grandma reading her phone or tablet every day.  Yet, I thank God often for the technology where I can read and/or listen to God's Word while waiting in the dentist office or surgery waiting room or a wait or delay at the airport. 
 
bgwilkinson said:
I wonder what these sentimental ones were saying when Johannes Gutenberg used movable type to mechanically print the Vulgate in the 1450s?
Click to expand...

"Manuscript Bibles that took years to make and cost more than a house and that I could never afford would have been good enough for my granddaddy if he'd ever been able to buy one, and they're good enough for me!"
 
Ransom said:
bgwilkinson said:
I wonder what these sentimental ones were saying when Johannes Gutenberg used movable type to mechanically print the Vulgate in the 1450s?
Click to expand...

"Manuscript Bibles that took years to make and cost more than a house and that I could never afford would have been good enough for my granddaddy if he'd ever been able to buy one, and they're good enough for me!"
Click to expand...


I don't think I could afford the insurance I would need to own one of the iconic manuscript Bibles and be comfortable using it. Hi Res pics will have to do, and I can carry them with me on my phone.
 
admin said:
prophet said:
Tyndale
Wycliff
Darby
Kjv
Anishnaabemowin
Navajo
Cherokee
So, yeah, id be a hypocrite.

Anishinaabe
Click to expand...

That's an interesting list. What are the Indian versions based on? Were they translated from the Textus Deceptus, UBS or from an English Bible?
Click to expand...
Fixed.
The Anishnaabemowin Scripture is not an app, but a pain-in-the neck pdf...FTR..in case you wanted to download it.
They were all translated by Amercian Bible Society, or Missionary Society, and based on the common english bible(which is what the "KJV" was called, when it  was the universally accepted English bible).


Anishinaabe

 
admin said:
prophet said:
....the "KJV" was called, when it  was the universally accepted English bible).
Click to expand...

This is the first time I ever heard a KJVO admit that the KJV is no longer the universally accepted English Bible. Was this a slip?
Click to expand...

Seriously?  Doesn't everyone recognize that the multitude of translations no longer makes the KJV the universally accepted English Bible?


We recognize that the KJV crowd is in the minority, but then again - broad is the way that leadeth to destruction....... 8)
 
Binaca Chugger said:
admin said:
prophet said:
....the "KJV" was called, when it  was the universally accepted English bible).
Click to expand...

This is the first time I ever heard a KJVO admit that the KJV is no longer the universally accepted English Bible. Was this a slip?
Click to expand...

Seriously?  Doesn't everyone recognize that the multitude of translations no longer makes the KJV the universally accepted English Bible?


We recognize that the KJV crowd is in the minority, but then again - broad is the way that leadeth to destruction....... 8)
Click to expand...

Binaca Chugger said,

"Seriously?  Doesn't everyone recognize that the multitude of translations no longer makes the KJV the universally accepted English Bible?"


I thought that, "the KJV is the universally accepted English Bible", is one of the main KJVO talking points.

Am I wrong? :)
 
Binaca Chugger said:
Seriously?  Doesn't everyone recognize that the multitude of translations no longer makes the KJV the universally accepted English Bible?
Click to expand...

Well, apparently the KJV-onlyists don't get this, because they're still KJV-onlyists.
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Binaca Chugger]If only we could all agree upon one text....................  ;D
Click to expand...

LOLCat?
[/quote]

That's my choice.  It's also how my cats got saved.  I still have scars from the baptisms, though.
 
admin said:
I have debated this point on the old FFF just to have every KJVO say otherwise.

I wish the KJVOs would get their talkingpoints together.
Click to expand...
You are used to debating 'kjvo's, not believers.

Anishinaabe

 
I only use KJV.  I believe it to be a correct translation.  Hence, I use no other.

Maybe the terminology means something different to the Ruckmanites or other such groups.  "Universally Accepted" could mean the only English version not criticized by any group.  UA could mean the only version that is acceptable to all.  UA could mean the majority of people accept and use.

I have found ALL versions to be criticized, therefore, not any version is accepted by all and the KJV is definitely not the most sold in bookstores today.  One could say that most groups that accept other versions do accept the KJV, while many KJV groups do not accept any other, so the KJV is the only UA Bible - but that sounds like an awful lot of semantics to prove nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top