KJVOs and Other versions from the TR

The Parson said:
Gee Ransom, I didn't know Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and John Bunyan were fundamentalists that went to Hyle university. I'll have to adjust my history books.
Click to expand...
Which of them were KJV-only clowns who thought the translation of 1 Cor. 1:18 had to do with Westcott and Hort?
 
I'm pretty sure they would agree with me Ransom if they were faced with the same challenges. Wow, even though you aren't his (Hyles) advocate, the same argumentative spirit seems to live on in you. Argument for the sake of argument.
 
The Parson said:
I'm pretty sure they would agree with me Ransom if they were faced with the same challenges. Wow, even though you aren't his (Hyles) advocate, the same argumentative spirit seems to live on in you. Argument for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're annoyed that your false assertions didn't escape scrutiny.
 
Ransom said:
In other words, you're annoyed that your false assertions didn't escape scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sorry, are you addressing someone else? Since I didn't make any false assertions, it must be someone else you're talking to. Do you know the Lord as Savior?
 
The Parson said:
Since I didn't make any false assertions
Click to expand...

Welp...

The Parson said:
The difference between "are saved" and "being saved" highlights the theological and textual distinctions between the KJV and the NKJV. The KJV, rooted in the Textus Receptus, emphasizes the completed work of salvation at the moment of faith. In contrast, the NKJV, influenced by the broader manuscript tradition of the Nestle-Aland text, reflects an ongoing process of salvation, acknowledging continuous growth and transformation in the believer's life.
Click to expand...

Since the difference in translation between the KJV and NKJV has nothing to do with the Textus Receptus vs. the Nestle-Aland text, your "conclusion" was a flat-out falsehood.

And when you claimed you had made no false assertions, therefore, that was also a lie.

You do know what Revelation says about the fate of liars ... right, "Parson"?
 
Did I happen to mention then that there is a sinister intent behind the Nestle-Aland? I figure if I'm ankle deep, I'll go knee deep since you're "trying" to push me into a corner. Standing by...
 
The Parson said:
Historic Missionary Baptists generally emphasize a more traditional and holistic interpretation of the Bible, often rejecting dispensationalism because it tends to compartmentalize biblical history into distinct periods or "dispensations."
Click to expand...

Do you have any (academic) source for this claim? Or is it your anecdotal experience you rely on for this assertion?.
The Parson said:
To give you a bit of personal context, my family has a history of standing firm in our beliefs, even when faced with opposition. My grandfather, John Henry Davis Sr., established the Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, in the late 1950s. He encountered significant challenges from Pastor Jack Hyles of the nearby First Baptist Church of Hammond, particularly because Hyles was a staunch dispensationalist. Despite the confrontations with Hyles, who seemed to go out of his way to convince my grandfather of HIS views, my grandfather remained committed to his faith and principles, embodying the humility and integrity that he believed were essential to true pastoral leadership. Interestingly, I was in my momma's belly during this time, finally to be born in Illinois in 1958, though conceived in the hills of Tennessee. Dad came to help grandpa in this missionary effort while mom was still pregnant with me. Gee whiz, Hyles even had some of his people infiltrate Back to the Cross just to add opposition to my grandfathers pastorate.

Over time, Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church was renamed to Trinity Baptist Church, continuing my grandfather's legacy. (just a historical f.y.i.)
Click to expand...
Just for your perusal....

 
Ransom said:
And when 1 Cor. 1:18 says we are "being saved," how do you know it is supposed to be talking about salvation as a done deal, instead of the "ongoing process" of sanctification that lies between our justification and glorification?

I require rigorous exegesis, please. Show your work.
Click to expand...
I have never seen "lobotomy" spelled: "rigorous exegesis" before.
 
Ransom said:
Which of them were KJV-only clowns who thought the translation of 1 Cor. 1:18 had to do with Westcott and Hort?
Click to expand...
It was past tense in the 14th Century, turd burglar.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (WYC)
For the word of the cros is foli to hem that perischen; but to hem that ben maad saaf, that is to seie, to vs, it is the vertu of God.
 
prophet said:
It was past tense in the 14th Century, turd burglar.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (WYC)
For the word of the cros is foli to hem that perischen; but to hem that ben maad saaf, that is to seie, to vs, it is the vertu of God.
Click to expand...

Wycliffe was translated from the Vulgate, Catholic boy.
 
The Parson said:
I've chatted with Mr. Ward a couple of times on his YT channel. He does seem a fair fellow. And my stance isn't the foaming at the mouth type of KJB believer also. My objections are actually about the character of those who have trounced on the RT with their manuscripts. If the character is flawed, most certainly their work is also in question. For instance, like the
preexistence of Souls. Origen believed that souls existed before they were placed in the body and that some of those souls were created by God, while the others were created by angels. That's the well of souls teaching that some heretical Jews taught well before Christ came in the flesh. Or that even Satan and his angels would eventually be saved. He also didn't believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit had an equal standing with God the Father. His beliefs were Gnostic when it came to creation, etc, etc, etc... And yes, he believed in scholarship over spirituality.
The same can be said for Westcott and Hort who had some squirrely beliefs of their own.


Thank you for that...
Click to expand...
No one here would disagree that Origen had some questionable if not flat out heretical positions. Most of the Christian scholastic world would agree with this including those who favor the use of the "Critical" text (Nestle-Aland, Et al.) over the majority or "received" text. And to what extent was Origen's contribution anyway? Those who are rabid disciples of Peter Ruckman would lead you to believe he was the actual author (originator) of these so-called "alexandrian" texts but wherein is the actual historical truth?

The same line of reasoning may be applied to the "Pro-KJV" argument. Why is it that so many of the cultists and false teachers prefer the KJV? (Mormons, Jesus-Only Apostolic, Church of Christ, Ruckmanites, Eastern Orthodox, Etc.)

In all fairness, the big reason why the Syriac-Byzantine line is in the overwhelming majority is because Greek remained as the extant language in the east whereas Latin became the preferred language of the west. I think this needs to be factored in. Fruitful discussion is possible regarding these two lines of manuscripts. There is also nothing wrong with PREFERING a translation that relies more upon the TR. I am still KJV-Preffered myself.

And even with all of the textual variances, there is nothing which calls into question any major doctrine of the church!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top