Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Interests => Theology Forum => Topic started by: robycop3 on Mon Mar 30, 2020 - 17:12:47

Title: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Mon Mar 30, 2020 - 17:12:47
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Mon Mar 30, 2020 - 17:14:42
The KJVO has the burden of proof for his doctrine, as he makes a positive assertions that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation, and that it's perfect. The Freedom Reader denies the veracity of the KJVO claims, so the KJVO must prove his assertions correct to shift the burden of proof to the Freedom Reader.
   
     The Freedom Reader's first defense is actually the ace of trumps - that the KJVO myth doesn't have one word of Scriptural support. We Christians don't believe any doctrine of faith/worship that doesn't come from Scripture, and KJVO certainly doesn't! Its MAN-MADE origin is well-known, & has been published on many sites. That fact alone effectively kills the KJVO myth's veracity.

     
The KJVO myth asserts that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, and that it is perfect. We shall first prove the KJV is NOT perfect.
A glaring error in the KJV is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". Second, if it HAD then existed, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please would've observed it, as they didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected. The TRUTH is, Herod was waiting for PASSOVER, then ongoing, to be finished. And passover, ACCORDING TO GOD HIMSELF, is seven days long. That's proven in Ezekiel 45:21, a direct quote of GOD HIMSELF: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."

  Furthermore, John 18:28 supports this fact: "Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the [a]Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might EAT THE PASSOVER." Now, the paschal lambs had already been eaten the previous evening, so the 'passover' cited here could only be the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week. So, there's no question that passover was ongoing when Peter was busted.

 
 Then, there's the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". While Koine Greek has an equivalent for the English "the", it does not have one for the English "a", so English must supply it for the sentence to make sense in English. But the Greek does NOT have that connecting word between "est(as) & "rhizo" (root).Therefore, "THE root" is incorrect. Also, the Greek "pas", rendered 'all' in this verse in the KJV generally means 'some of all kinds or sorts', so MODERN English Bibles render the passage as "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil", which reality fits perfectly.

  Then, there's Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL." The Hebrew 'ratsach', here rendered 'kill', generally refers to murder or wrongful killing. This KJV mistake has caused controversy & protests for many years, including "conscientious objectors" to military service, & protests at execution sites. Again, modern versions correctly render this verse as "You shall not MURDER."
 
  And this is but a short list of the KJV's goofs & booboos.While it's an excellent translation, it's far-from-perfect!




   




Title: Phony as a Ford Corvette or as real as the Ark of the Covenant
Post by: TimothyJ on Mon Mar 30, 2020 - 17:43:10
OK, so I'm a Christian who will not use any other than the King James. Does that make me a cultist? And I do have my reasons should you ask. So ask? I do ask you to hit me with only one or two questions at a time. It may be that I'm not as bright as a burnt out Christmas tree bulb. Maybe not... It's my contention however that because posters want so bad to prove their points, they flood the threads with super long paragraphs taking any semblance of a conversation to the reading of a thesis.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 04:55:25
  I am not against the KJV despite its goofs & booboos; I am against the false KJVO MYTH that says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there.

  This is a man-made myth whose origins are easily seen. NO KJVO can provide one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUP[PORT for this myth, which automatically makes it false.

  I have no prob with anyone wanting to use only the KJV (or any other one version) except for the above reasons.
Title: Re: Phony as a Ford Corvette or as real as the Ark of the Covenant
Post by: Rella on Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 06:48:30
OK, so I'm a Christian who will not use any other than the King James. Does that make me a cultist? And I do have my reasons should you ask. So ask? I do ask you to hit me with only one or two questions at a time. It may be that I'm not as bright as a burnt out Christmas tree bulb. Maybe not... It's my contention however that because posters want so bad to prove their points, they flood the threads with super long paragraphs taking any semblance of a conversation to the reading of a thesis.

OK Timothy,  Why?

This might be a little wordy for you but I tried to make it clear.

You should always compare what is written in the KJV to all other translations. Primarily those that are earlier then KJV.

The original New Testament ws written in Koine Greek.

Koine Greek was the common language of the time Jesus walked the earth and when the books of the new testament were written.

I DO NOT expect you to understand the Greek following, but am using it as an example only of how verious translators
change things.

Let us look at a passage from KJ]]

REV 6:8
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth

Now let us look at how it was written in Koine Greek with English Translation and foot notes.



6:8 καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος χλωρός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ Θάνατος,126 καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἀκολουθεῖ μετ’ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῆς γῆς, ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ καὶ ἐν θανάτῳ καὶ
ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς.

⁸And I looked, and behold, a pale green horse, and the one who is sitting on127 it, his name is Death, and Hades is trailing after him;128 and authority is given them129 over one fourth of the earth, to kill them with war, and famine, and death, and by the wild animals of the earth

footnote:

126 6:8a txt ὁ θάνατος P 46 ƒ 2 922 1828 2329 TR RP [NA27] {\} ‖ θάνατος ℵ C 61* 1006 1611
1841 2040 2053 2073 ‖ ὁ ἀθάνατος A ‖ lac 051 2050 2062

127 6:8b The preposition "on" is different with this rider than the first three. When you read
this version of the prepositional phrase out loud, this one has a more grave sound to it. It is
longer and more spelled out.

128 6:8c txt ακολουθει μετ’ αυτου 2053com copsa,bo Vic TR ‖ ακολουθει οπισω αυτου syrh ‖
ηκολουθει μετ’ αυτου A C P 922 1611 SBL NA28 {/} ‖ ηκολουθει οπισω αυτου ƒ 2 2329 ‖
ακολουθησειμετ αυτου 2053txt ‖ ηκολουθει αυτω ℵ 046 1006 1828 1841 2040 lat RP ‖
ακολουθει αυτω syrph ‖ lac ²⁴ 051 2050 2062

129 6:8d txt αὐτοῖς ℵ A C P ƒ 2 1006 1611* 1841 2053 TR NA28 {\} ‖ αὐτ 046 922 1611c 1828
2040 2329 K
lat syr copsa,bo eth RP ‖ lac ²⁴ 051 2050 2062.

So while these are very minor differences my main question is

WHY would the King's men change any wording here? To me the original is very understandable.....

Don't get me wrong. I am happy you read the bible. ANY translation. Most people dont.


Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: TimothyJ on Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 09:19:56
Well before I answer your question/questions, why would I not understand the difference between the common and the classic Greek? Tell me the importance please. Just indulge me here if you would.
And which Greek again were the 1st century letters at Antioch written in, and who wrote them? And then what particular Greek were the 3rd century translations written in, and by whom?

I do see you got a little carried away there, even though your contention you dumb-ed it down a bit for me.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: winsome on Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 12:02:07
There is what appears to be a very scholarly article on the KJV and the Textus Receptus here: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: skeeter on Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 19:08:56
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.
who made it a doctrine?  who made it a myth?

why should anyone believe you or your sources?

Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Wed Apr 01, 2020 - 04:49:29
who made it a doctrine?  who made it a myth?

  Hard to find out exactly who made it a doctrine, but some of the blame should go to Dr. D. O. Fuller & his 1970 book, Which Bible? Several other preachers started believing the hooey, and it wasn't forever that "King James Bible Only" and similar began appearing on some church shingles.

Quote
why should anyone believe you or your sources?

  Anyone is free to check them out for themselves, by Google, or in most public libraries. Dr. Wilkinson's book is available from Amazon, and, possibly, Ebay. And everyone has freedom to believe them or not.

  However, TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT automatically makes the KJVO myth false.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Johnb on Wed Apr 01, 2020 - 07:29:09
KJV better than some worse than others.  None have been written by the finger of God like the Ten Commandments.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Wed Apr 01, 2020 - 08:50:27
Well before I answer your question/questions, why would I not understand the difference between the common and the classic Greek? Tell me the importance please. Just indulge me here if you would.

Koine... or common Greek came into being to replace the various,dialects of Greek with a single common one.

Not being a true Greek scholar I understand Koine to be  really close to modern Greek. And it is an easier version of Greek to learn than classical while  still a semi living language by use in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Both Classical and Koine were used in the first century.

 Classical Greek was the basic language of literature and formality. Koine, or common as you referred to it was basically everyday street language. Likely the reason God inspired the authors to use Koine in the New Testament as it would be more readily understood.



And which Greek again were the 1st century letters at Antioch written in,


Classical

and who wrote them?

Dang it..... dang it......    ::eek::   Ignatius....?????   That is, if you are one who accepts he actually did write them and that some, if not all are not forgeries as many claim.....

So altering my answer.... it is somewhat unclear.....  Yes, that is my final answer.
[/color]

And then what particular Greek were the 3rd century translations written in, and by whom?


This makes zero sense as you have written it.. What are you asking?

Are you asking which Greek the translators were reading to translate into other languages in the 3rd century?

It looks as if you are asking which Greek was used in translating another language into some Greek?

I have no clue what you are looking for.........


I do see you got a little carried away there, even though your contention you dumb-ed it down a bit for me
Title: Re: Phony as a Ford Corvette or as real as the Ark of the Covenant
Post by: robycop3 on Thu Apr 02, 2020 - 05:28:41
OK, so I'm a Christian who will not use any other than the King James. Does that make me a cultist? And I do have my reasons should you ask. So ask? I do ask you to hit me with only one or two questions at a time. It may be that I'm not as bright as a burnt out Christmas tree bulb. Maybe not... It's my contention however that because posters want so bad to prove their points, they flood the threads with super long paragraphs taking any semblance of a conversation to the reading of a thesis.

  OK< Sir, one question at a time - Can you provide any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth ?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat Apr 25, 2020 - 12:59:40
The Model T was produced from 1909 through 1927. Henry Ford had it made from the best materials available, with the latest engineering designs. His assembly lines became so efficiant that a car could be made from parts every 93 minutes.

During its production run, the Model T was made into dozens of variations. American LaFrance Co. modified some 900 of them into firetrucks. Some of the other variants made were touring cars, racing cars, various kinds of trucks, "sportabouts", & luxury cars. Over time, innovations such as electric starters, electric windshield wipers, better headlights & brake lights, etc. were added.

The Model T was the original SUV, being able to negotiate many wagon paths & rough, unpaved roads, & to cross many creek beds. However, this car still rode roughly over smooth surfaces. But this car remained easy for most owners to keep in repair.

However, tech for cars was increasing, & other cars were offering more features than the Model T, & also, modern paved roads were being laid, enabling cars to go faster more-smoothly. So, Ford replaqced the Model T with the Model A, suited for modern roads. But to this day, the Model T remains the 8th best-selling car model of all time, with over 16 million units made.

The KJV is a "Model T" Bible version. It was the best English version of its day, offering such features as easily-read marginal notes, the Apocrypha, an "Easter-Finder", & an outstanding preface. In time, it replaces virtually every other English version in common use. And the British govt. which held sway over most of the English-using world, outlawed the printing or sale of any other English version.

But the English language changed over time, especially in countries outside of Britain, & the language style of the KJV fell increasingly out of use. Also, many more Scriptural mss.had been discovered, bringing the wording of some verses into question, as well as better translation tools being used, which showed some goofs & booboos in the KJV. Thus, modern English Bible versions began to be made, which are in modern language, & correct many of the KJV's errors.

Now, the KJV remains a viable Bible version, same as the Model T remains a car. However, same as the Model T, the KJV is behind times when compared to modern versions.

God has caused His word to be translated into OUR language, & there's no valid reason not to read it & preach it in our own language. We don't drive Model Ts every day, so there's no reason to use only a "Model T" Bible version!
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat Apr 25, 2020 - 13:00:44
I carefully re-read Will Kinney's article, "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?", and, while he SAYS it is, he FAILS TO PROVIDE ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS IT IS ! ! !

    Instead, he posts several verses that are found in every other valid English Bible translation, & includes the disproven "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" as well. (The AV 1611 itself proves that "thingie" wrong with its footnote for the 2nd "them" in V7 - "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.")

  He refuses to acknowledge any of the KJV's goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, the ADDITION of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, or the OMISSION of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.(Remember, both addition and omission of any of God's word is as sin !)

  Mr. Kinney cannot answer the "no Scriptural support" fact, so he tries to reverse the fact by saying that no other version is mentioned either. However, he ignores the FACT that, by not limiting Himself to any one translation in any language, God allows men to make new Bible translations as He wills. As Master of all language, God knows languages change over time, by His will, and thus, new translations of His word are needed. He originally caused His word to be written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek because those were the languages used by His chosen penmen, and by His intended readership at that time. When God's time came to spread Christianity beyond the Jews & those peoples whom they lived among, God caused His word to be translated into other languages. Now, it's translated into some 2500 languages & dialects, even into some which have no written forms.

  The TRUTH is, GOD IS NOT LIMITED in English, or any other language, to just one translation ! While some languages have only one translation, that's because they're recent ones, & that particular language isn't changing much. Mr. Kinney is simply COMPLETELY WRONG! But his obsession with the KJV & the KJVO myth won't let him see the truth.

 The answer to the article's title question is a resounding "NO !"
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: BlessedCreator on Sun Apr 26, 2020 - 16:03:22
The KJB is the only English Bible I would ever reccomend others to read from. Modern Bibles are satanic, they butcher and pervert the word of God. There are evil agendas in modern Bibles. I made another thread why I believe what I have said here:  http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/bible-corruptions/?topicseen
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Sun May 03, 2020 - 08:48:49
I am posting a link for all to look at , read, and then bookmark for themselves.

This is an English lnterlinear study of the bible. They are the earliest New Testament Translations.

Found on this link:

http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html

An interlinear comparison in Modern English.

John Wycliffe  1382

John Purvey  1395

William Tyndale  1525 and 1534

Geneva  1599

King James  1611 - 1881

* start reading at page 10 and on.......

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/6_Version_Comparison.pdf
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sun May 03, 2020 - 09:42:03
The KJB is the only English Bible I would ever reccomend others to read from. Modern Bibles are satanic, they butcher and pervert the word of God. There are evil agendas in modern Bibles. I made another thread why I believe what I have said here:  [url]http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/bible-corruptions/?topicseen[/url]


  What's a "KJB" ? The Russian replacement for the KGB ?

  You're simply WRONG about the modern English BVs, which are in OUR language.

  Now, please show us any corruption in the NKJV.

  And, please show us some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, or admit it's false !
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: BlessedCreator on Tue May 05, 2020 - 13:34:03
I did, in the link I posted in my previous post.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Tue May 05, 2020 - 17:02:50
I did, in the link I posted in my previous post.

  Not a bit of Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. That automatically makes that myth false.

  And you haven't proven one corruption. You're just guessing. I suggest you check out the Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic for passages you question in MVs.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Thu May 07, 2020 - 05:54:23
About 15 years ago I came across a post by a professor of theology at some bible school i had not heard of before supporting the KJVO position.

His argument was based on the idea of the competing manuscripts in both NT (TR vs the others) and OT (Masoretic vs LXX) and he posited that God was so upset with the mess that HE RE-INSPIRED His Word in 1611.  That means that anything that went before, including the original manuscripts, (if they are ever found ) are null and void.

I asked for scriptural evidence for "re-inspiration" which never came.  BTW I tried to find that post a few months later and apparently it had been taken down.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Thu May 07, 2020 - 06:13:28
I have already given the problem with the name "James" in the KJV (which seems to be nothing more than the King trying to get his own name in the book).

There are a couple of other issues where the KJV translators invented their way out of a problem.

Take the word "Baptize."  It was introduced into English by the KJV translators who were afraid of the Church of England bishops who were sprinkling.  the words bapto and baptizo were verbs meaning to dip, plunge, soak, immerse. So they invented a new word that no one knew exactly what it was supposed to mean so as to not challenge the extant practice.

Another one is the invention of the Name "Jehovah."  In using the Masoretic text of the OT, they came across God's Holy Name, the unpronounced  four letter Tetragramaton of Yud Hay Vav Hay.  Going back millennia, Jews had substituted the word "Adonai" (my Lord) for the Tetragramaton when reading biblical texts.  To remind the reader to do that, the Masorites (who invented a system of vowel points) used the vowel points from Adonai when the biblical text had the Tetragramaton. Trying to pronounce Yud Hay Vav Hay with the vowel points of Adonai gave Iehovah.  Later the initial I was replaced with J.  Hence "Jehovah."
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Thu May 07, 2020 - 07:43:30
I have already given the problem with the name "James" in the KJV (which seems to be nothing more than the King trying to get his own name in the book).

There are a couple of other issues where the KJV translators invented their way out of a problem.

Take the word "Baptize."  It was introduced into English by the KJV translators who were afraid of the Church of England bishops who were sprinkling.  the words bapto and baptizo were verbs meaning to dip, plunge, soak, immerse. So they invented a new word that no one knew exactly what it was supposed to mean so as to not challenge the extant practice.

Another one is the invention of the Name "Jehovah."  In using the Masoretic text of the OT, they came across God's Holy Name, the unpronounced  four letter Tetragramaton of Yud Hay Vav Hay.  Going back millennia, Jews had substituted the word "Adonai" (my Lord) for the Tetragramaton when reading biblical texts.  To remind the reader to do that, the Masorites (who invented a system of vowel points) used the vowel points from Adonai when the biblical text had the Tetragramaton. Trying to pronounce Yud Hay Vav Hay with the vowel points of Adonai gave Iehovah.  Later the initial I was replaced with J.  Hence "Jehovah."


Thank you DAve,

I appreciate learning of the name Jehovah, as you have explained. I did not know .

As to... " Take the word "Baptize."  It was introduced into English by the KJV translators who were afraid of the Church of England bishops who were sprinkling. "

Ummm, not exactly. At least not as I have been able to find.

In the Geneva bible of 1560... the one King James wanted to replace with his own we read....

16:16   He that shall beleeue and be baptized, shalbe saued: but he that will not beleeue, shalbe damned.
http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Geneva/41/16

And truth be told.... so much of KJV is nearly carbon copied with the Geneva of 1530 that it makes one wonder if the King's men actually did their own translations , OR were using another's work and just changing a word here and there?

My online copy of The Aramaic Scriptures says it originally said immersed... and someone, in translation noted baptized.

ܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢ ܘܥܡܕ ܚܝܐ ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܗܝܡܢ ܡܬܚܝܒ
16 Whoever mahaymen {believes}, and is Immersed {Baptized}, Khaye {Lives}, and whoever that does not believe, is methhayab {condemned}.

(​​Copyright © 2010-2019 TheHolyAramaicScriptures.com
​~ The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: English Translation/Transliteration ~ ​
Warning! The Aramaic and English Texts Shown In This Online Edition ​Are Copyright Protected: All rights reserved)

The English translation portions found herein are under copyright law to protect the integrity of the translation. If these translations are used in quotations, either online, or in some printed form, you are asked to provide the copyright notice given here at the bottom of each page... at the end of the quoted portion that is used, along with a link, (online) or the address (printed), pointing to this website, namely, www.thearamaicscriptures.com to help others read God's Holy Word from The Holy Aramaic Scriptures in English.

From this we read...


​​This Website features The Holy Aramaic Scriptures, as preserved in the ancient Eastern Aramaic Text of The New Testament, in such manuscripts as The Yonan Codex, The Khabouris Codex, The 1199 Houghton Codex, and The Mingana 148 Codex, among others for you to read and study; giving as literal as possible a rendering of this Holy Biblical Text, in a fresh, accurate, literal,  English Translation/Transliteration.

So it would seem that in 1199 IMMERSED would have been the word of the day.

Of course, Mark stops at Chapter 8 in the Codex Sinaticus.

And I am out of time at the moment. So I will see who said what later, as time allows....

But just know it was not the king's men who first put baptized into Mark 16:16... that came before.

Later... now you have my curiosity really stirred up.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu May 07, 2020 - 13:30:57
Take the word "Baptize."  It was introduced into English by the KJV translators who were afraid of the Church of England bishops who were sprinkling.  the words bapto and baptizo were verbs meaning to dip, plunge, soak, immerse. So they invented a new word that no one knew exactly what it was supposed to mean so as to not challenge the extant practice.
They didn't exactly invent a new word.  The Greek word is baptizo.  They simply transliterated rather than translating in this instance.  If you're saying their reasons for doing so were bad, I think I agree.

Also, baptizo does not mean dip.  Plunge or immerse are valid translations, but the gist of the meaning is that something has been sunk.  The word is used in other documents of the same era for pickles and scuttled ships.  They are not merely dipped, but sunken... to the point that they are changed to be something else.

Jarrod

Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Thu May 07, 2020 - 13:38:19
They didn't exactly invent a new word.  The Greek word is baptizo.  They simply transliterated rather than translating in this instance.
invented in the sense that it was new to English. Many words are invented by transliterating from another language.
 
Quote
Also, baptizo does not mean dip. Also, baptizo does not mean dip.
If memory serves dip was what bapto meant, not baptizo.  I lumped them in together.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Fri May 08, 2020 - 09:08:42
  What's a "KJB" ? The Russian replacement for the KGB ?

  You're simply WRONG about the modern English BVs, which are in OUR language.

  Now, please show us any corruption in the NKJV.

  And, please show us some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, or admit it's false !
The best way to determine if all bibles are equal is to compare them. The NKJV teaches a different "born again" than what is taught in the KJV.

 1 Peter 1:23 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 having been born again, not of [a]corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides [c]forever, ote]


1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Are we born again THROUGH  the word of God as the NKJV says or are we born again BY the word of God as the KJV says? . The language in one version is inspired by some one to reveal the truth about what the second birth is and the other one isn't.

Through the word of God means the word of God is involved in the second birth in some way. By the word of God means the second birth is created solely by the words of God. It's up to the reader to determine which is right.

A person who reads the KJV and believes exactly what the words say will have a completely different understanding of the second birth than some one who reads another version.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri May 08, 2020 - 14:45:57
The best way to determine if all bibles are equal is to compare them. The NKJV teaches a different "born again" than what is taught in the KJV.

 1 Peter 1:23 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 having been born again, not of [a]corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides [c]forever, ote]


1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Are we born again THROUGH  the word of God as the NKJV says or are we born again BY the word of God as the KJV says? . The language in one version is inspired by some one to reveal the truth about what the second birth is and the other one isn't.

Through the word of God means the word of God is involved in the second birth in some way. By the word of God means the second birth is created solely by the words of God. It's up to the reader to determine which is right.

A person who reads the KJV and believes exactly what the words say will have a completely different understanding of the second birth than some one who reads another version.
A person who understands the KJV in the way you have... has mis-understood it.

The NKJV carries the correct meaning of the verse in modern vernacular.  The KJV carries the exact same meaning... but uses the word "by" in a sense that has fallen out of use and become archaic.

Jarrod
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Fri May 08, 2020 - 15:19:01
A person who understands the KJV in the way you have... has mis-understood it.

The NKJV carries the correct meaning of the verse in modern vernacular.  The KJV carries the exact same meaning... but uses the word "by" in a sense that has fallen out of use and become archaic.

Jarrod
I sense that you don't agree BY the comments you made.
I sense that you don't agree THROUGH the comments you made.
Do you see the difference in the two examples I just gave?

If anything, "by way of" would convey the message much better than through. But even that doesn't convey the idea that we are born again BY the word of God.
The word of God creates the new man in us.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat May 09, 2020 - 09:24:25
The best way to determine if all bibles are equal is to compare them. The NKJV teaches a different "born again" than what is taught in the KJV.

 1 Peter 1:23 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 having been born again, not of [a]corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides [c]forever, ote]


1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Are we born again THROUGH  the word of God as the NKJV says or are we born again BY the word of God as the KJV says? . The language in one version is inspired by some one to reveal the truth about what the second birth is and the other one isn't.

Through the word of God means the word of God is involved in the second birth in some way. By the word of God means the second birth is created solely by the words of God. It's up to the reader to determine which is right.

A person who reads the KJV and believes exactly what the words say will have a completely different understanding of the second birth than some one who reads another version.

  The NKJV's reading is simply more modern & a little better translation, not a "corruption".
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Sat May 09, 2020 - 09:56:52
  The NKJV's reading is simply more modern & a little better translation, not a "corruption".
Any bible that isn’t inspired by God is a corruption of the word of God. Without inspiration a Bible is just some translators best effort of wading through some other mans opinion of what a word originally meant in a language that’s been dead for 2000 years. Wouldn’t you agree?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sun May 10, 2020 - 17:17:08
Any bible that isn’t inspired by God is a corruption of the word of God. Without inspiration a Bible is just some translators best effort of wading through some other mans opinion of what a word originally meant in a language that’s been dead for 2000 years. Wouldn’t you agree?

 All valid translations, any language, are equally inspired. No one can show otherwise.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Sun May 10, 2020 - 21:36:06
All valid translations, any language, are equally inspired. No one can show otherwise.
New International Version
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

The NIV says Jesus has an origin, do you believe that?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon May 11, 2020 - 05:45:31
Are we born again THROUGH  the word of God as the NKJV says or are we born again BY the word of God as the KJV says? . The language in one version is inspired by some one to reveal the truth about what the second birth is and the other one isn't.
And that shows the weakness of ANY translation.

Never NEVER NEVER try parsing words or phrases in a translation, no matter how good you think it is. GO TO THE ORIGINAL (or as close to it as you can get)

Unless someone has a graduate degree in Koine Greek, he/she is unqualified to make that level of decision.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Mon May 11, 2020 - 06:23:39
And that shows the weakness of ANY translation.

Never NEVER NEVER try parsing words or phrases in a translation, no matter how good you think it is. GO TO THE ORIGINAL (or as close to it as you can get)

Unless someone has a graduate degree in Koine Greek, he/she is unqualified to make that level of decision.
If I did that I would be as biblically illiterate as you are... I don't think so,. I CAME OUT of your cult years ago.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon May 11, 2020 - 06:59:04
If I did that I would be as biblically illiterate as you are... I don't think so,. I CAME OUT of your cult years ago.
I do not consider myself to be that literate.  I know a little Biblical Hebrew and even less koine Greek.

And what "cult" do you think i am in?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Mon May 11, 2020 - 07:38:35
I do not consider myself to be that literate.  I know a little Biblical Hebrew and even less koine Greek.

And what "cult" do you think i am in?
DaveW I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm telling you the truth. When you pick and chose words from different bibles, concordances or lexicons you're not gaining more understanding, your mixing truth with fact. Like I said on my original post on this thread, your definition of everything biblical will be completely different than a person who believes every word exactly as written. Common sense says that's true.

The cult I was talking about is that cult that teaches God's innerant word is only found in the originals.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon May 11, 2020 - 07:47:08
DaveW I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm telling you the truth. When you pick and chose words from different bibles, concordances or lexicons you're not gaining more understanding, your mixing truth with fact. Like I said on my original post on this thread, your definition of everything biblical will be completely different than a person who believes every word exactly as written. Common sense says that's true.

The cult I was talking about is that cult that teaches God's innerant word is only found in the originals.
"Every word as written" or "every word as translated?" The only thing "written" was the ortginals.  Everything else is translated.

GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH. Period.

And why do you call that a "cult?"  Do you know what a cult actually is?

Have you heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? (original archived at Dallas Theological)

https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
https://www.moodybible.org/beliefs/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy/

Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rob on Mon May 11, 2020 - 08:21:06
"Every word as written" or "every word as translated?" The only thing "written" was the ortginals.  Everything else is translated.

GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH. Period.

And why do you call that a "cult?"  Do you know what a cult actually is?

Have you heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? (original archived at Dallas Theological)

https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
https://www.moodybible.org/beliefs/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy/
Where do you get the doctrine of God isn't capable of translating his word into other languages?

What is a cult? A cult follows a particular figure or object. The object of this cult is a bunch of contradictory copies of what some people think is the original manuscripts.

Have I heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? No but I went to the site you posted and looked at. What was I supposed to get out of their statement?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Mon May 11, 2020 - 08:37:06
Any bible that isn’t inspired by God is a corruption of the word of God. Without inspiration a Bible is just some translators best effort of wading through some other mans opinion of what a word originally meant in a language that’s been dead for 2000 years. Wouldn’t you agree?



Then by your understanding unless you are reading the original pages in Koine Greek that were hand wriiten by the authors we have been told were inspired by God we are basically wasting our time?

I would submit to you that even, as Dave suggested, you did have a graduate degree in Koine Greek... it could not be trusted
simply because to understand and learn a different language you would know that the teacher of such may or maynot be teaching a correct translation as all translations vary.

And that is because people read things differently even from the one sitting next to them.

I have a lot... A WHOLE LOT.... of issues with KJV. But my issues are not because I have found a translation I like any better.
I quote KJV for simplicity, and often refer to ancient Greek or Aramaic. People know KJ. Even though my personal belief is King James men did a little rewording of the Geneva bible throughout too much of it.

Everyone on here has their choice for reading.

And everyone on here has their opportunity to search much older translations then KJV, right here on line. Just do a search.

Languages change over time. But core meaning does not.
 
Take England English and American English

England calls it a lift.... Americans call it an elevator.  Totally different words but mean the same thing.

England calls it a lorry ... Americans call it a truck. Again totally different words that mean the same thing.

BTW  the word "truck" comes from the Greek word "trochos" which means "wheel".

Obvious mistakes should be noted as seen.

Your comments in you quote put me in mind of Mel Gibson, who after having produced the movie "The Passion of the Christ"
which was not made in English and used closed captioning to explain what was going on and what was being said. (IN Aramaic)
Then after it was released went on to try to get the Roman Catholic church to stop having Mass in English or any other language but to put it world wide back into Aramaic. Because it is his belief that that is the only correct language.

Your
Quote
If I did that I would be as biblically illiterate as you are... I don't think so,. I CAME OUT of your cult years ago.

Which cult would that be.... there are so many. The cult of believers in Christ? The cult of believers who read the Holy Words and use them as their handbook and guide on how to live.... just what cult would that be?

Here is a challenge for you.

Mark 16: 9 - 20 was not written with the rest of Mark that originally ended with Mark 16:8.

Mark 16:9-20 includes the disputed longer ending of Mark that is included in later Greek manuscripts yet is missing from earlier ones, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Later Greek Manuscripts. LATER GREEK, not English and not early Greek.

So,fit that into your mindset and tell us if we should not be reading the bible at all.

Is it just possible that God does want us confused and confounded  and just running around on faith handed down through the ages, word of mouth?

If we cannot trust the translations down through the ages. And even the earliest of the later Greek one that started to embellish, then maybe that is so. Man did screw it up unifying at the Tower of Babel. You know how well that turned out.
All the varied languages and such..... Could be God wants us still not not be as one cause when we do that usually something dastardly happens.

Just something to think about.







Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon May 11, 2020 - 09:39:48
Where do you get the doctrine of God isn't capable of translating his word into other languages?
There is nothing in the text of scripture to indicate other languages are acceptable.
Quote
What is a cult? A cult follows a particular figure or object. The object of this cult is a bunch of contradictory copies of what some people think is the original manuscripts.
There are 2 kinds of cults - the cult of personality that follows a person. (not an object) That person (like Sun Myung Moon or David Koresh) interprets everything for the followers, and can lead to incidents like Jonestown where everyone committed suicide.

The other kind is based on the meaning of the word cult which comes from the Latin cultus meaning "hidden."  That kind of cult has hidden doctrines and/or practices that are only revealed to the members.  Like the rites of the FreeMasons.


Quote
Have I heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? No but I went to the site you posted and looked at. What was I supposed to get out of their statement?
That almost every evangelical denomination agrees with its position.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue May 12, 2020 - 23:56:09
I would submit to you that even, as Dave suggested, you did have a graduate degree in Koine Greek... it could not be trusted
simply because to understand and learn a different language you would know that the teacher of such may or maynot be teaching a correct translation as all translations vary.
If you study Classical Greek, they don't teach you a certain translation of the Bible.  They teach you the language, and primarily from the works of Greek philosophers as Aristotle and Plato, which is in the Attic dialect - that spoken at Athens in the heart of Greece.  That isn't great for translating the Bible, because while the Bible is written in common Greek, it is written using regional dialects heavily influenced by Aramaic, and 300-400 years later than the Classical philosophers. 

New Testament word usage is often different from Classical Attic Greek, and instead follows the usage in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which is itself a sprawling mess of manuscripts from an even earlier period.  Basically, the NT writers thought in a Semitic language and were themselves translating it into Greek (or using a Scribe who did) for the reader.

If you want to understand the Bible in its original language, Classical Greek isn't sufficient.  You'll need an encyclopedic knowledge of the Septuagint, and that's probably a doctorate that comes AFTER your graduate degree and perhaps requires some background in Hebrew or Ancient Near East studies, as well as the Greek.

Or….

You could just use Thayer's Lexicon.  Thayer had all those accreditations and then some, and devoted 30 years to creating a reference manual to allow the rest-of-us to get at the meaning of the Biblical words (and which was itself built on the life's work of two fellows you came before him).  Thayer's will not only give you basic meaning, but also give you the references for every usage of the word in the Bible... AND the Septuagint... AND the Hebrew word behind the Greek word in the Septuagint... AND all the usages in Greek literature contemporary to the Bible... AND in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.  And it will examine the use of the word in different declensions, and note other words that modify the meaning of the word in common usage when they are combined.

It isn't the easiest reference to use, but it's comprehensive.  It's the best tool for studying the Bible by a country mile.

Jarrod
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed May 13, 2020 - 00:02:59
I sense that you don't agree BY the comments you made.
I sense that you don't agree THROUGH the comments you made.

Do you see the difference in the two examples I just gave?
I do.

But I submit to you that someone from 17th century England... would not.  The word "by" in that time period and at that place held a different meaning than it does to us today.

Do you wish to hold the position that English words haven't changed meaning at all in the past 400 years?  That is nonsense.

Jarrod
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Thu May 14, 2020 - 08:25:24
If you study Classical Greek, they don't teach you a certain translation of the Bible.  They teach you the language, and primarily from the works of Greek philosophers as Aristotle and Plato, which is in the Attic dialect - that spoken at Athens in the heart of Greece.  That isn't great for translating the Bible, because while the Bible is written in common Greek, it is written using regional dialects heavily influenced by Aramaic, and 300-400 years later than the Classical philosophers. 

New Testament word usage is often different from Classical Attic Greek, and instead follows the usage in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which is itself a sprawling mess of manuscripts from an even earlier period.  Basically, the NT writers thought in a Semitic language and were themselves translating it into Greek (or using a Scribe who did) for the reader.

If you want to understand the Bible in its original language, Classical Greek isn't sufficient.  You'll need an encyclopedic knowledge of the Septuagint, and that's probably a doctorate that comes AFTER your graduate degree and perhaps requires some background in Hebrew or Ancient Near East studies, as well as the Greek.

Or….

You could just use Thayer's Lexicon.  Thayer had all those accreditations and then some, and devoted 30 years to creating a reference manual to allow the rest-of-us to get at the meaning of the Biblical words (and which was itself built on the life's work of two fellows you came before him).  Thayer's will not only give you basic meaning, but also give you the references for every usage of the word in the Bible... AND the Septuagint... AND the Hebrew word behind the Greek word in the Septuagint... AND all the usages in Greek literature contemporary to the Bible... AND in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.  And it will examine the use of the word in different declensions, and note other words that modify the meaning of the word in common usage when they are combined.

It isn't the easiest reference to use, but it's comprehensive.  It's the best tool for studying the Bible by a country mile.

Jarrod

 Exactly.

But we have only the translations of any ancient language to read. Even of those who have studies such languages , which would be by the translations of earlier men who translated as they understood things, to go by. And they DO NOT always agree.

There are none of us who lived back in the 1st century who would have had the understanding of the languages.
But the hope is that if there are 2 or 3 translations saying the same, we can fairly assume accuracy?

So, unless we forgo the reading of God's holy words altogether then we have to be prepared when someone comes forward and challenges us on a given translation such as King James.

There is nothing wrong with those challenges.

Every thing I have looked into in older biblical manuscript there will be differences in translations.

Heck... The Geneva bible has an issue or two with different printings in different years.

And so does the Greek interlinear that I often quote from for there are other interlinear that are not identical.

That is why saying I am saying KJV only is pretty nuts IMHO.

I am not putting it down. Heck it is the only bible I had when I started to read it from Genesis on....

But I know better now and I look at others. NOT at commentator statements but what the actual printed word says... and I always go back to my ancient Greek copies and whatever else was written closer to that time.





Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Thu May 14, 2020 - 09:33:03
There are none of us who lived back in the 1st century who would have had the understanding of the languages.
But the hope is that if there are 2 or 3 translations saying the same, we can fairly assume accuracy?

So, unless we forgo the reading of God's holy words altogether then we have to be prepared when someone comes forward and challenges us on a given translation such as King James.

There is nothing wrong with those challenges.
One thing to remember -  the writers of both testaments were Jews immersed in Jewish culture. (possible exception: Luke) So even if they were not writing in Hebrew/Aramaic, they were thinking in it.   The fact is that the Peshita (Aramaic NT) contains so many "Semitisms" (word plays inherent to Hebrew/Aramaic) that it could not possibly have been translated backward from Greek. Somewhere out there there were Semitic language versions of almost every NT book.   And the nice thing is that much or most of 2nd Temple Judaic culture and thought have been preserved in the Talmuds and other writings.

I believe it is for this very reason Paul wrote this:

Rom 3:1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu May 14, 2020 - 17:41:27
That is why saying I am saying KJV only is pretty nuts IMHO.

I am not putting it down. Heck it is the only bible I had when I started to read it from Genesis on....

But I know better now and I look at others. NOT at commentator statements but what the actual printed word says... and I always go back to my ancient Greek copies and whatever else was written closer to that time.
Me too.  The King James was my first Bible, and remains my favorite Bible. 

It is not without its issues... the main one being that King James English is basically a foreign language compared to modern English.  But I am already familiar with its issues, and I am already fluent in King-James-ese.

It's a good Bible.  Just don't try to read it as though it's modern English.  It isn't.

Jarrod
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat May 16, 2020 - 09:26:40
  I apply the "Model T principle".

  The Model T (1909-1927) was the best American car of its time, & was made for the American roads of that time, which were largely unpaved wagon trails. However, roads were mimproved, & other automakers developed better tech, so the Model T fell behind times, & was replaced by the Model A, which was better-suited for the roads of its day.

  The KJV was the best Bible version available to 17th C. British, but time marched on & the language changed, as well as previously-unknown ancient Scriptural mss. being found, & better translation tools were made. Thus, the KJV was supplanted by better translations in modern language.

  The KJVO myth is entirely man-made, from imagination, conjecture, misinfo, & guesswork. It has NO Scriptural suppoer, which automatically makes it false.

  Sportzz Fanzz, please don't believe anyone who says the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation, as that's a patent LIE !
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon May 18, 2020 - 06:14:33
Me too.  The King James was my first Bible, and remains my favorite Bible. 

It is not without its issues... the main one being that King James English is basically a foreign language compared to modern English.  But I am already familiar with its issues, and I am already fluent in King-James-ese.

It's a good Bible.  Just don't try to read it as though it's modern English.  It isn't.

Jarrod
I wish this forum had a "like" button.  I would hit it a dozen times on that one.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Johnb on Mon May 18, 2020 - 22:04:59
   

  Click here for Like.  There ya go Dave.  I will hit it for both of us.  “LIKE”
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Tue May 19, 2020 - 07:01:25
   

  Click here for Like.  There ya go Dave.  I will hit it for both of us.  “LIKE”

I have always used a +1 elsewhere for showing I like a post.

Here, you can +1 then add manna. Is a good way to show approval and how many do.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Johnb on Tue May 19, 2020 - 07:13:04
Rella yes I have also but thought a +2 might be confusing
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Tue May 19, 2020 - 10:31:12
Rella yes I have also but thought a +2 might be confusing

Yes, especially when you have to wait between adding manna. I agree
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat May 23, 2020 - 14:59:50
Any bible that isn’t inspired by God is a corruption of the word of God. Without inspiration a Bible is just some translators best effort of wading through some other mans opinion of what a word originally meant in a language that’s been dead for 2000 years. Wouldn’t you agree?

  There are many words & phrases in the original Scriptural languages that have several meanings in English, which are not always dictated by context. And many English words have changed meanings since the KJV was made. For instance, "conversation" useta mean "lifestyle". "Furniture" meant the trappings of a horse. "Corn" meant any grain, & "meat" meant any food. So, the KJV is full of dead language. It's a 'Model T' Bible version.

  And God caused men to make translations of His word, but didn't make those men to be error-free. ALL Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, and GOD IS NOT LIMITED to any one of them in any language.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: robycop3 on Sat May 30, 2020 - 11:57:59
  I see the KJVOs won't try to defend their myth here, so they lose by default.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: DaveW on Mon Jun 01, 2020 - 07:22:32
  There are many words & phrases in the original Scriptural languages that have several meanings in English, which are not always dictated by context.
True. And there is the problem of Semitic languages that even the NT authors ran into: Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc) INHERENTLY have multiple levels of meanings.  It is natively built into the structure of the language itself and makes any kind of translation very problematic.  It is why those who embrace Islam MUST learn to read Arabic. Arabic has 7 different levels of meaning and all are simultaneously true.

Biblical Hebrew has at least 4 recognized levels of meanings: Peshat (plain meaning) Remez (hinted at) Drash (a teaching) and Sod (mystical meaning). There is no way to structure a translation that adequately reflects all of those differing meanings.  I believe there is also a 5th level which rests in the pictographic letter symbols of the original Paleo-Hebrew.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: EYRose on Sat Jun 20, 2020 - 14:16:33
this topic is the twitterings of fools.

KJV has Creation, Fall,
Nephilim, Flood, Prophets, Ten Tribes travelling west, Jesus, Jews killing him, Paul trying to keep small congregations pure,  Revelation.

It sure beats anything the Jews, JWs, Catholics have to offer.
 
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Sat Jun 20, 2020 - 14:41:01
this topic is the twitterings of fools.

KJV has Creation, Fall,
Nephilim, Flood, Prophets, Ten Tribes travelling west, Jesus, Jews killing him, Paul trying to keep small congregations pure,  Revelation.

It sure beats anything the Jews, JWs, Catholics have to offer.

Why is Easter the appropriate word in Acts 12: 4?
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: RB on Sat Jun 20, 2020 - 15:30:28
Why is Easter the appropriate word in Acts 12: 4?
Only ONCE will I attempt to speak with you on this subject after that I'm finished.

                                                                                                               “Easter” in Acts 12:4
Quote
Acts 12:1-4~"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Sadly, many are amused or confused by the use of “Easter” in Acts 12:4, and others gloat about it, (like you) because they want to find fault with the King James Bible.

They may accuse the King James translators of a mistranslation, especially if they know the underlying Greek word is pascha, for Passover. They may conclude that Herod Agrippa I celebrated pagan Easter. They may twist scripture to make Passover and the feast of unleavened bread two different things.

“Easter” in Acts 12:4 is Passover, which is the feast of unleavened bread, clearly identified in the context (Acts 12:3). This is simple enough by reading the passage, but especially if it is known that Passover and unleavened bread are the same feast and/or that Easter in English and European languages can easily mean Passover.

In English and the languages of Europe … Easter = Passover … if not as the first or primary definition, it is as a secondary and significant definition.

The English word “Easter” means the spring Christian festival to commemorate the resurrection of Christ in timing with the spring Jewish celebration of Passover.

Here is part of the entry for “Easter” in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the standard of the English language:

Easter. 1. One of the great festivals of the Christian Church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish Passover, the name of which it bears in most of the European languages. 2. The Jewish Passover.

When quoting a source for an example of definition 2, the OED quoted Acts 12:4 in the King James Bible.

The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are synonyms in the Bible unless context distinguishes the Passover lamb or supper from the week-long celebration.

Ezekiel 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Mark 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

There are other similar verses showing the names as synonyms for the same feast.

These verses show that the Passover and feast of unleavened bread are synonyms, when there is no context limiting either one of them, as is the case in Acts 12:3-4.

It is clear in Acts 12:3-4 by reading the verses together that “days of unleavened bread” (12:3) is the same as “Easter” (12:4). There is no reason to seek any other explanation, especially once the facts listed above about English usage of “Easter” and the Bible use of Passover terms as synonyms are understood.

The King James Version is perfectly accurate and consistent for readers that will check the context, confirm Bible use of terms, and check the meaning of the English word “Easter.”

Checking the underlying Greek word pascha is further confirmation to some, but provides no additional proof for those trusting the English words of the KJV.

It should be obvious that Herod was not waiting for the Jews to finish the pagan celebration of Astarte’s Day or the celebration of the Christian Easter Sunday.

He was waiting for the seven-day feast of Passover to end so that his murder of Peter would not draw as much political or social opposition from the Jews, whom he sought to further please after having killed James.

Let all amusement or confusion about Acts 12:4 end.

Let all criticism of the English King James Bible and its translators end.

Let all wresting of scripture to make Passover and the feast of unleavened bread separate things end.

I WILL trust the King James Version perfectly~ there are no other options as trustworthy – God has stamped the KJV with His approval by 400+ years of spiritual fruit and all the internal and external measures of His divine revelation.

Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: EYRose on Sat Jun 20, 2020 - 16:12:54
Why is Easter the appropriate word in Acts 12: 4?
I'm neither Jew, Catholic, Gentile nor False Christian so I couldn't care less about a word you are getting your panties in a twist about.
However I do take care not to fall foul of Acts 15:9:

In context, Peter plainly states:

"He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are," (Acts 15:9-11).

Peter makes it clear that the Gentiles were cleansed by faith. They were saved immediately upon believing and apart from any works.
Jews are not saved because they deny Jesus, catholics are not becauise they worship idols, JWs because they worship graven images, Muslims ditto, etc etc.
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sat Jun 20, 2020 - 23:57:16
True. And there is the problem of Semitic languages that even the NT authors ran into: Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc) INHERENTLY have multiple levels of meanings.  It is natively built into the structure of the language itself and makes any kind of translation very problematic.

Biblical Hebrew has at least 4 recognized levels of meanings: Peshat (plain meaning) Remez (hinted at) Drash (a teaching) and Sod (mystical meaning). There is no way to structure a translation that adequately reflects all of those differing meanings.  I believe there is also a 5th level which rests in the pictographic letter symbols of the original Paleo-Hebrew.
My turn to +1. 

I feel like no matter how I try to explain this, it can't be understood until the reader has done some study on the subject.  You have to see it to believe it, truly.

That "5th level" is the key.  When you can see the (3-logogram) Hebrew roots as if they were pictures, rather than phonetic, then all the potential meanings derive from it.

Not to say that I can consistently do that... there are probably a dozen Hebrew roots for which I feel I have that mastery, which leaves me about 8000 to go...

Jarrod
Title: Re: The KJVO myth - Phony as a Ford Corvette !
Post by: Rella on Sun Jun 21, 2020 - 08:29:02
I'm neither Jew, Catholic, Gentile nor False Christian so I couldn't care less about a word you are getting your panties in a twist about.
However I do take care not to fall foul of Acts 15:9:

In context, Peter plainly states:

"He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are," (Acts 15:9-11).

Peter makes it clear that the Gentiles were cleansed by faith. They were saved immediately upon believing and apart from any works.
Jews are not saved because they deny Jesus, catholics are not becauise they worship idols, JWs because they worship graven images, Muslims ditto, etc etc.

And Mark 16:16 He who believes AND  is baptised will be saved.

I would not say you are a false Christian.... I would leave the Christian off that nomenclature.

YOU are the one who was touting KJV or NKJV yesterday. But now you do not care that there is something wrong with
putting Easter in where when originally written in the Greek they were only talking about Passover?t...

As far as me getting my panties in a knot... that wont hurt as bad as you getting your shorts in a knot, especially when yours
seem to be made of clay.