The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[Dave-W]

I haven't run into anything objectionable in the ESV.

Objectionable? No ... but not all that tight either.

 

[miamited]

Objectionable? No ... but not all that tight either.

Hi dave,

Isn't the word 'grandchildren' plural?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Dave-W]

Isn't the word 'grandchildren' plural?

Not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand; but yes.

 

[Concord1968]

 

[Dave-W]

To the OP: HOW can the KJV be so perfect if it can’t even get the names correct?

For instance, why does it misname our Lord’s brother Jacob (Yakov actually) “James?”

And why does it talk about the prophet “Esaias?” From the context it would be Isaiah, but it sure does not say that. Actually the name is Yishayahu.

 

[Pethesedzao]

Hi again pethesedzao,

Why do you continue to dance around the issue and not address questions put to you directly concerning the issue? Ok, I'll play. What 3 specific Scriptures lose their intent and meaning by not being written in the KJ translation form? Do you have the original manuscripts so that you know that you can prove that those three Scripture references were only copied correctly apart from all the other translations?

I hope that at some point you'll actually read my questions and answer my questions. So far, all you've been able to produce is 'your understanding of how things should be based on nothing more than, well, uh...it's your understanding of how things should be.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

In the Psalms the correct translation is 'for His mercy endureth forever'

 

[Dave-W]

In the Psalms the correct translation is 'for His mercy endureth forever'

OR:

Ki L’Olam chasdo. As in:

Hodu L’Adonai ki tov, Ki L’Olam chasdo.

 

[miamited]

There are quotations of scripture like 1 John 5:7 that are found in the writings of the early church fathers which validate the family of manuscripts that the KJV is translated from.

Hi nicolaus,

Just so everyone is on the same page here, I'm going to copy the referenced passage which is actually 1 John 5:7-8 depending on the translation one might have.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NIV

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV

Now, there has certainly been some serious debate concerning this little piece of Scripture and certainly much wiser minds than mine have looked into it. Here's some research found on Bible.org:

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

From the site, Puritan Board, we find this:

Cyprian quotes 1 John 5:7 in the year 250 A.D.

"The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me scattereth." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."

Oddly, this bit of research claims that the entire passage is Cyprian quoting, but it seems to be written more as a quote of Cyprian. While Cyprian does say "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and the quote appears to end there in this text, but then the next passage is also covered in a closed quote. And these three are one." From the evidence offered in this blurb, there really isn't any assurance that Cyprian was quoting from 1 John. As far as the quote "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," could just as well be a quote from the last words of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew. Jesus also referenced the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit in a single sentence there, too.

I find it somewhat telling that we have manuscript evidence of this in some relatively recent manuscripts and 4 of the 8 show the longer passage as a marginal notation. Why, if it were generally accepted Scripture half a millennia ago, would people not write it out in its completion?

The Chick organization does have a response to be viewed, but there are, I think, some questionable claims made as to 'why' we don't find the longer translation in our earliest manuscripts. His claim is basically that the Catholic organization destroyed it. However, that doesn't really answer why the earliest manuscripts wouldn't have it. I mean, I know that the Catholic organization has long stood against many of the saints of Christ, but to actually seek and destroy pretty much every early manuscript copy seems like an impossible task to me.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

However, two things that I will concede. First, without the original, we can't really be sure that we have any of the words of the new covenant Scriptures correct other than in their agreement with one another. Second, that this small passage of Scripture has no bearing on the whole of what the Scriptures teach us about God, His Son and His Spirit and all that He has done that we might know Him and receive His promise of eternal life. If in the other passages of the Scriptures where Jesus declares to us that he and the Father are one with the Spirit, we can't understand that the three are in agreement, then this passage isn't likely to convince us either.

Jesus prayed that the future believers would be one, just as he and the Father are one.

So, you're free to believe what you believe about this passage, but I still contend that you couldn't prove it. No one else has really been able to or we wouldn't have the debate still going on.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

In the Psalms the correct translation is 'for His mercy endureth forever'

Hi pethesedzao,

Huh?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Majority Text is the true word of God, which originated in Antioch. The Textus Receptus was a collection of faithful translations from the Majority manuscripts, of which the KJV is a faithful translation of.

The contemporary versions use the Alexandrian set of manuscripts, which were corrupted from the time of about 200 AD.

There was no "Textus Receptus" until early modern times. The very term "Textus Receptus" was coined after the translation of the KJV to refer to the manuscript tradition(s) which eventually became the KJV.

Even more problematic? Those manuscript traditions do not even completely agree with themselves.

If you took all the Majority Texts, i.e. the Byzantine Text Type manuscripts, they are not all the same, there are variations in the readings, lots of variations in the readings.

What early modern scholars did was collect the available manuscripts (most of which were very recent, not ancient) and put forward critical textual editions. That is, they compared manuscripts and tried, to the best of their abilities, to choose which readings were the most accurate based on the material they had, and put those readings into a single volume of text. That is how Erasmus published his Greek New Testament, all five editions of it (with each edition including changes, sometimes major changes, such as the later editions including the Johannine Comma which was not included in the earlier editions). In addition to the work of Erasmus there were some Protestant scholars, such as Theodore Beza and Robert Estienne (Stephanus) who also published critical textual editions.

It was these critical editions which were used by the translators of the KJV, along with use of the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale's New Testament, and the Bishop's Bible. And the end result was a translation that attempted to be faithful to the earlier Bishop's Bible while also improving upon it by using the critical texts, and readings faithful to the familiar Vulgate (which is why the Latin word "lucifer" is found in Isaiah 14 of the KJV).

Your understanding of the issues of Alexandria and Antioch are immensely poor, and demonstrates a massive failure to understand the history, theological schools of thought, etc concerning Antioch and Alexandria. You are ignoring, for example, the important theologians and churchmen who defended the faith in Alexandria, such as Athanasius and Cyril, and ignoring the problematic and even heretical persons from Antioch such as Paul of Samosata, Lucian and Nestorius. Alexandria was not "corrupted", but was a bastion of orthodox teaching. And I'm not suggesting that Antioch was compromised either, but that ignoring the simple fact that major defenders of the faith came from Alexandria and there were heretical opinions coming out of Antioch (and, yes, at times vice versa) is demonstrative of a major misunderstanding of history and relevant church issues.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

God hasn't always been merciful, why? Because mercy is an attribute of love.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God hasn't always been merciful, why? Because mercy is an attribute of love.

God is love.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

God is love.

-CryptoLutheran

That's right. Love has no beginning and no end. God IS love.

 

[Pethesedzao]

Hi pethesedzao,

Huh?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Why is love greater than faith and hope?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's right. Love has no beginning and no end. God IS love.

Which is why God's mercy is everlasting. He is the God who is merciful and kind to the thankless and the wicked (Luke 6:36), the God who desires not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked repent and have life (Ezekiel 33:11). This is the God who chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, who loved us even before the world began (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is the God who so loved the world--all people, everywhere, of all times--that He sent His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16). This is the God who demonstrates His love in that while we were even sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8), for Christ died for the wicked and the ungodly (Romans 5:6). For our Lord Jesus Christ did not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick (Mark 2:17).

It is out of God's unfathomable, incomprehensible, and unconquerable kindness, mercy, love, and generosity that He saves the world, and offers His Son for the whole world, that the world might be redeemed, saved, healed, and made new by Him and in Him.

This is Gospel 101. If you aren't teaching and preaching these things, then you aren't preaching the Christian Gospel, but instead preaching another, false gospel, which St. Paul calls anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

Which is why God's mercy is everlasting. He is the God who is merciful and kind to the thankless and the wicked (Luke 6:36), the God who desires not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked repent and have life (Ezekiel 33:11). This is the God who chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, who loved us even before the world began (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is the God who so loved the world--all people, everywhere, of all times--that He sent His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16). This is the God who demonstrates His love in that while we were even sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8), for Christ died for the wicked and the ungodly (Romans 5:6). For our Lord Jesus Christ did not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick (Mark 2:17).

It is out of God's unfathomable, incomprehensible, and unconquerable kindness, mercy, love, and generosity that He saves the world, and offers His Son for the whole world, that the world might be redeemed, saved, healed, and made new by Him and in Him.

This is Gospel 101. If you aren't teaching and preaching these things, then you aren't preaching the Christian Gospel, but instead preaching another, false gospel, which St. Paul calls anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

As I have stated, mercy has a beginning love doesn't.

 

[Pethesedzao]

Which is why God's mercy is everlasting. He is the God who is merciful and kind to the thankless and the wicked (Luke 6:36), the God who desires not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked repent and have life (Ezekiel 33:11). This is the God who chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, who loved us even before the world began (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is the God who so loved the world--all people, everywhere, of all times--that He sent His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16). This is the God who demonstrates His love in that while we were even sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8), for Christ died for the wicked and the ungodly (Romans 5:6). For our Lord Jesus Christ did not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick (Mark 2:17).

It is out of God's unfathomable, incomprehensible, and unconquerable kindness, mercy, love, and generosity that He saves the world, and offers His Son for the whole world, that the world might be redeemed, saved, healed, and made new by Him and in Him.

This is Gospel 101. If you aren't teaching and preaching these things, then you aren't preaching the Christian Gospel, but instead preaching another, false gospel, which St. Paul calls anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

Also, God hasn't always been holy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I have stated, mercy has a beginning love doesn't.

Mercy does not have a beginning. God is merciful from all eternity, since from all eternity He has shown mercy and been merciful to us sinners, that is why He chose us in Christ from even before the foundation of the world. God never began to be merciful. God has always been merciful, good, loving. The One who gives of Himself freely.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Also, God hasn't always been holy.

See, at this point, I'm starting to think that you are some kind of Poe here to troll.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

See, at this point, I'm starting to think that you are some kind of Poe here to troll.

-CryptoLutheran

I mean every post I write.