The KJVO myth...

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

Does he, or any other KJVO have anything new ? Far as I'm concerned, the KJVO myth is just that-a MAN-MADE MYTH -& is phony as a Ford Corvette!

One question for KJVOs-

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ?
Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.
 

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.

There is none.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

Does he, or any other KJVO have anything new ? Far as I'm concerned, the KJVO myth is just that-a MAN-MADE MYTH -& is phony as a Ford Corvette!

One question for KJVOs-

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ?
Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.

There is none.

I am not KJV only, I use the NKJV. But I did run accross a proof that God inspired the KJV of the Bible, it was on another thread but it got no replies. I guess it was that good.....just kidding...but I will post it here. It's pretty amazing actually.

Most scholars have what is called a view that is called "verbal plenary inspiration." At least the most reputable ones do anyway. Basically every dot, or grammar mark is there by divine inspiration. Granted grammar markings were added roughly a thousand years later. But you get the point. And further more what is inspired is the original autographs in hebrew, greek and parts of aramaic. English translations have numerous errors and that is why I have never heard of a scholar even claiming remotely that the english translations are inspired. Yet something must be. God's hand must have been on the Bible, because it survived all these years. The Bible is getting more and more accurate in english. Well as long as they use the proper manuscripts (but more on that later). Well anyway, there was something that popped up in social media this week, and I did some digging and it's sort of interesting. It supports at least a partial inspiration of an english translation (the KJV). I am not sure if this works with any other translation, but we can talk about that here. Anyway I will post the initial picture so you can read it. Notice that the original Bible did not have verse markings, or chapter markings, or maybe even the same book order. So this is sort of a unique version of your typical inspiration argument. This is at least a partial evidence of a partial inspiration behind the KJV. Now don't get me wrong, the KJV has numerous errors and had numerous revisions. But the point is that God's hand was on this translation, and I believe as I will get into later, there is reason for that. I actually use the NKJV, which is heresy to the KJV onlyist. So please don't say I am KJV only. But I think it's interesting this only works on the KJV bible, and there are books out that say that all other modern translations are based on forged manuscripts.

Here is a link for more info on the forgery, as well as an open thread to discuss it:
OneTab shared tabs

But I didn't want to ruffle feathers about the forgery, so forget I mentioned it. what I want to focus on is that it appears the Holy Spirit endorsed at least one english translation (I am not saying it's perfect, by any means, but that the project itself was endorsed).

Here is the image that I want to submit as evidence:

Inspiration of the bible translations.png


Here is a review of the above evidences, that mention this only occurs in the KJV Bible: possibly the NKJV too. The implications of this study are staggering, is God endorsing the chapter and verse divisions of the scriptures? If so how? I mean many many greek scholars have found errors in verse and chapter divisions. So again it's not God saying this english work is perfect. But that God is saying, I just want you to know I am here, I see your work in trying to preserve my word and I am with you, I endorse your effort.

Psalm 117 the Shortest Psalm in the Bible – This 'n That
 
Upvote 0

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is the image that I want to submit as evidence:

318264_bb69284c797b0862b6ae58bc407139cf.png

It's a powerful claim, which I've been trying to verify, to date without success. What exactly do you mean by 'center verse of the Bible'? I presume it means there are the same number of verses on either side?

If so, have you actually counted them or is there some program that can do it transparently? I see your link refers off to Snopes as the source, but that link is unhelpful.

Also, the original manuscripts did not contain chapter and verse. I heard the verses were not done until the 12th century or so. Not sure if this would lessen the impact?
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married

Were you aware that until about AD1000 there were no chapters in any Biblical manuscript. They were added quite arbitrarily and don't follow any particular pattern. They even break up perfectly coherent stories. The same thing happened with verse numbers several centuries later. All of the above is purely coincidental and has no hidden meanings attached.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 10,000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well, actually, I thought it was the Geneva version that added chapters.

And I still maintain that, without Scriptural support, the KJVO myth is false. And here's the origin of the current version of that myth:

The "foundation book" of the KJVO myth is 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, written in response to a squabble within his cult. When that squabble ended, so did his interest in that book. (In all fairness to Dr. W, he was not trying to start a new doctrine.) That book had no US copyright.

In 1955, one "J. J. Ray" published God Wrote Only One Bible, which plagiarized heavily from Dr. W's book, without giving him the slightest acknowledgement. Now I know this plagiarism was legal, as Dr. W's book had no US copyright, but WAS IT HONEST? Was it the CHRISTIAN way of doing something ?

In 1970, Baptist Dr. D. O. Fuller published Which Bible? It copied heavily off both Ray & W, but at least it acknowledged both, but carefully avoided mention of Dr. W's CULT AFFILIATION. Those, then, were the 3 "doundation stones" of the current KJVO myth. (Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence drew much material from Dr. W but without copying it verbatim as Ray & Fuller did.)

So, we see the current KJVO myth has a cultic, dishonest origin. Now, does GOD operate that way ?????? And the total lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT of KJVO renders it untrue, anyway.

Now, if anyone wishes to use the KJV from personal preference, fine. But know ye it's not the only game in town, nor is it perfect. It has many goofs & booboos. After all, as all Bible translations are, it's a product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Well, actually, I thought it was the Geneva version that added chapters.

The Geneva was the first English Bible to include both chapters and verses. But the chapter divisions were introduced in the high middle ages, and the verse numbering scheme was first introduced by Stephanus for his Greek New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The Geneva was the first English Bible to include both chapters and verses. But the chapter divisions were introduced in the high middle ages, and the verse numbering scheme was first introduced by Stephanus for his Greek New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran
Thanx !
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 10,000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
Taking your information here under consideration, wouldn't the KJV then be significantly different from the translations made in more recent years? That would seem almost inevitable, and yet it is not the reality.

The main differences, are 1) that majesty of Jacobean English which you referred to and which anyone having a High School education can understand with an occasional assist, and 2) the changes made in more recent versions for the sake of "modern language" or politically correct wording. For example, in the KJV, it's "mankind," but in the NKJV, it's rendered "humankind." That sort of thing is no shortcoming on the part of the KJV.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well, actually, there's a lot more to Jacobean/Elizabethan English than that. There are many everyday words not that were in use then, but whose meanings have changed greatly. Some examples:

TARGET - Once meant a small shield, from "targe", a large shield.

CONVERSATION - Once meant "lifestyle".

LET - Once meant "hinder" as well as "allow", depending on context.

CAREFUL - Once meant "anxious".

CHARITY - Once meant "love".

FURNITURE - once meant "a saddle".

IMAGINATION - Once meant "stubbornness".

Well, you get the picture. There are many more such words. (having the ability to learn Chaucer's English while in elementary school, so I could read his works as he had written them, I had no prob with Elizabethan English in Shakespeare, & later, in the KJV & Geneva Bible versions.)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's a powerful claim, which I've been trying to verify, to date without success. What exactly do you mean by 'center verse of the Bible'? I presume it means there are the same number of verses on either side?

If so, have you actually counted them or is there some program that can do it transparently? I see your link refers off to Snopes as the source, but that link is unhelpful.

Also, the original manuscripts did not contain chapter and verse. I heard the verses were not done until the 12th century or so. Not sure if this would lessen the impact?
I have heard that this only works with the KJV bible but it may work for the NKJV but not sure. I don't know how to test it. But I would think that if snopes could disprove such an important christian discovery that it would. Snopes is typically anti God and anti christian. I would think all they have to do is put the KJV text into an engine.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Were you aware that until about AD1000 there were no chapters in any Biblical manuscript. They were added quite arbitrarily and don't follow any particular pattern. They even break up perfectly coherent stories. The same thing happened with verse numbers several centuries later. All of the above is purely coincidental and has no hidden meanings attached.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 10,000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
Yes that to me is what makes this study all the more powerfuk, please reread my original post on this I discussed it better and with more length than I can now
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Now, despite as a Freedom Reader, my stance against the KJVO myth, (not the KJV) I don't go along with all the anti-KJVO hype.

For instance, there's the singing turtles of Job. In the English of that time, "turtle" was also slang for "turtledove" as well as a shelled reptile, depending on context. Unicorns? The meaning of the Hebrew word "rheem", rendered 'unicorn' in the KJV, is uncertain, except for being a large, fierce herbivore. Unicorns are on KJ,s coat-of-arms, and now on Britain's royal coat-of-arms, as are lions. The AV makers had no reason to not believe they existed. A cockatrice was any poisonous snake, not just the mythical 2-legged dragon, while a satyr was simply untranslated Hebrew, meaning "billy goat", the animal, not just the Greek god Pan, or other. In fact, the Greek satyr came from the much-older Hebrew word, as the mythical Greek satyrs were half-man, half-goat.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, actually, there's a lot more to Jacobean/Elizabethan English than that. There are many everyday words not that were in use then, but whose meanings have changed greatly. Some examples:
TARGET - Once meant a small shield, from "targe", a large shield.
CONVERSATION - Once meant "lifestyle".
LET - Once meant "hinder" as well as "allow", depending on context.
CAREFUL - Once meant "anxious".
CHARITY - Once meant "love".
FURNITURE - once meant "a saddle".
IMAGINATION - Once meant "stubbornness".
Well, you get the picture. There are many more such words. (having the ability to learn Chaucer's English while in elementary school, so I could read his works as he had written them, I had no prob with Elizabethan English in Shakespeare, & later, in the KJV & Geneva Bible versions.)
Here is a list of 750 words which have changed in meaning since KJV.
King James Bible Wordlist & Definitions
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Unicorns? The meaning of the Hebrew word "rheem", rendered 'unicorn' in the KJV, is uncertain, except for being a large, fierce herbivore.

Unicorn is likely a rhinoceros.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: David Kent
Upvote 0

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now, despite as a Freedom Reader, my stance against the KJVO myth, (not the KJV) I don't go along with all the anti-KJVO hype.

For instance, there's the singing turtles of Job. In the English of that time, "turtle" was also slang for "turtledove" as well as a shelled reptile, depending on context. Unicorns? The meaning of the Hebrew word "rheem", rendered 'unicorn' in the KJV, is uncertain, except for being a large, fierce herbivore. Unicorns are on KJ,s coat-of-arms, and now on Britain's royal coat-of-arms, as are lions. The AV makers had no reason to not believe they existed. A cockatrice was any poisonous snake, not just the mythical 2-legged dragon, while a satyr was simply untranslated Hebrew, meaning "billy goat", the animal, not just the Greek god Pan, or other. In fact, the Greek satyr came from the much-older Hebrew word, as the mythical Greek satyrs were half-man, half-goat.

The KJV is a masterpiece of high English literature, but heavily biased towards protestant puritan doctrine. Prime example is the translation of anything that moves as 'hell' (ie Sheol, Hades, Gehenna). It has this picture of God generally, which tends to carnal, though with a lofty sovereignty. Generally, the KJV is more a product of its time, I would suggest, something of an artifact of Anglicanism.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So again I would like to present the evidence that the KJV has evidence at least of inpiration. So far no one has refuted it. So I will wait for a bit longer then unsubscribe. Take your time.

Reply to this post:
The KJVO myth...
 
Upvote 0