Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
TinyDancer87

That Old Black Bible

Recommended Posts

TinyDancer87

I found this... interesting:

 

 

Quote
The Devil has many counterfeits. There can only be one Bible that is indeed God's Word. Any guesses? Haha That Bible is obviously the King James Version. I love that old Bible.

 

http://thatoldblackbible.blogspot.com/

 

Okay, this guy is part of IFBC (and has poor grammar skills for proof), so I understand why he would favor King James Version. But do they really believe that this is the TRUE version? And all other "counterfeits" are of the Devil?

 

This is complete ludicrous to me, and I don't understand the reasoning.

 

1) King James version is just that- a version. It's translated from Hebrew and Greek. But aren't the other versions too? Not to mention, it's only a couple of hundred-years old. What makes KJ version Divine, and all others inspired by Satan?

 

2) And I guess asking why the Koran or Torah isn't included under God's word is out of the question. But the Bible? Not even that is God's word. Only the King James version.

 

Anyways, any insight as to why they believe this? Biblical or historical proof? I was just taken aback to know that the Bible I've been reading this whole time is actually the works of the Devil :roll:

 

His wife's blog: http://pelkeyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... d-day.html

Edited by OnceUponATime
adding tags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anxious Girl

Good Lord, not this argument again. In my opinion, I feel that most fundie people like the KJV because it spouts patriarchy. I wish that one of these Bible thumpers would read a recent version of the oldest published Bible in English. Does such a thing exist? I would be interested in reading it too. I hate it when people have said that it's wrong to edit the Bible/write in it. News flash: Back then, editing had to be done, whether it was for understanding purposes with the Bible in a different culture/language, or for somebody's sad view of the Book to change certain words to mean what they want it to mean. I wish that somebody would translate the Torah/Bible into English without censoring certain books/chapters out, and only editing grammar errors, not situations in the Bible that society may find righteous or not. But sadly, I feel that I'm the only one who wants a Bible like this to be printed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reds

You are not the only one who would like to see that, or feels that all bibles are works of God.

My daughter has a book about santa and who is santa's God.

The book makes a good point to me that God is who you want him to be. He may be called many things in many cultures but God is God and he is called many things because it is the way that the people of that culture know him and speak to him. He is familiar to them in that form.

(side note, one of the points/questions the little girl askes santa is "How many naughty boys and girls are there? And santa replies, "None, everyone is good. But sometimes they make bad choices.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TinyDancer87

I didn't realize that this topic had been discussed already- I'm fairly new here.

In my church we read the Spanish's equivalent of the King James version, but some words still don't translate literally; for example the English word "helpmeet" doesn't exist in Spanish. So to say that the KJversion is the "one and only" was really foreign to me- and a bit insulting. Not everyone can read English!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cran

A gem, that guy:

"Currently there are 20 so called churches in Waterville but no Independent Fundamental Baptist Church that stands on and preaching the Word of God without apology. There is everything from Faith Evangelical Free to Catholic to Lutheran. This city needs the Gospel. "

thatoldblackbible.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-god-is-doing.html

Used to "Catholics are not Christian and need the Gospel" but this is rather new, indeed. ALL churches need to gospel and are doomed unless they are IFBC that preach as it pleases him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skrmom

I have several Bibles, including KIng James and several more 'modern' translations. I am Baptist, but not IFB-as a matter of fact, most IFBers would find my church too liberal.

(women wear pants, cut their hair, wear make-up, kids go to public schools and colleges)

What I don't understand about KJ onlyists is, why don't they speak KIng James English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kishiria

I have a non-Zondervan reproduction of the orginal 1611 KJV. It contains the Apocrypha in between the two Testaments and isn't much different at all from its Catholic counterpart, the Douay-Rheims Bible.

I've never heard a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the Geneva Bible either, other than it's not the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mirele
I have a non-Zondervan reproduction of the orginal 1611 KJV. It contains the Apocrypha in between the two Testaments and isn't much different at all from its Catholic counterpart, the Douay-Rheims Bible.

I've never heard a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the Geneva Bible either, other than it's not the KJV.

Hoo boy...the King James Bible. There's a couple different positions on it off in IFB land.

Mostly they agree on the following:

* The KJV is inspired by God, the other versions not at all.

* The manuscripts the KJV was translated from are better than the older manuscripts used by more recent versions.

* They don't like the translation methodologies used by more modern versions (e.g., "dynamic equivalence," using the older manuscripts as the base for the translation, the use of non-formal language in the translation or simply being more accurate in word choice than the KJV translators).

You'll also hear a lot of KONSPIRACY MONGERING about the TOTAL EBIL that is translations based on the "Wescott-Hort" "Alexandrian" manuscripts.

But it gets wackier. There is a segment of that population (called "Ruckmanites") who think that the KJV 1611 is actually MORE inspired than the manuscripts it was translated from. So, for example, where it says "Easter" in the KJV at Acts 12:4 and (for example) the NIV says "Passover" and the Greek manuscripts say "pascha" (or Passover), the Ruckmanites would say that this is an example of revelation to the KJV translators to use Easter instead of Passover. Like I said, very whack.

tl;dr: more than you ever wanted to know about the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.