The KJVO myth...

[Bob_1000]

So a translation can't go out of date or the words that were fine 400 years ago have changed their meaning, “For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.” (Philip. 1:8.)

Societal meanings of words have no bearing on the biblical meaning of words. No one should ever go outside the bible to gain meaning of a word, because when you go outside of the bible you're getting mans opinion. The bible is it's own dictionary.

 

[Bob_1000]

Ah, so you read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to know that?

No I don't speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic so there is no reason for me to go there. I can only speak about English bibles.

 

[Bob_1000]

Okay. I am in disagreement with you on this. If you are comparing newer Bibles to the KJV, in my opinion thatb is a false equivalency. It would be a false equivalency because the KJV itself is a translation.

I tried to read the KJV and well, it's distracting to me. I failed Shakespeare in high school, so there is that. It's distracting in that we no longer speak in that vernacular. The trees and thous and other words of the 17th century vernacular are words that we do not use everyday and so it distracts me and keeps me from reading through fluidly.

So, I prayed about which Bible to purchase and my first purchased Bible was the NKJV. This was over 10 years ago now. Just recently I prayed again for which Bible to purchase as my NKJV was falling apart and was lead to the NRSV with apocryphal.

So, I'm not so sure that the KJV is the only Bible we're supposed to read. Again, thatbis my opinion, but when backed up by prayer and where I was lead for my own Bibles by God.

I respect that, that's exactly how I used to feel.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

No I don't speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic so there is no reason for me to go there. I can only speak about English bibles.

So how are YOU doing the comparison or are you just reading KJVO websites? I DO read Biblical Greek, so I use the Septuagint for my OT and the 1904 Patriarch Text as my NT. The Scriptures are NOT their own dictionary. Translating them requires skill, linguistics and making sure that the translation makes sense to the reader while capturing the intent of the author.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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 are no prophecies in the scriptures about the KJV Bible so there can’t be any scriptural support for KJVO.

 

[Fervent]

It has nothing to do with the child being conceived in accordance with God's plan, it's not even about an earthly conception it's about a literal, real, spiritual conception. Isaac was literally the one and ONLY son that Abraham led to the Lord at that time. ISAAC WAS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN.

Do you understand that we, as Isaac was, are children of Abraham? This is like the absolute basics of Christianity and I don't understand how you can't see it.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Rom_4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Your twisting the word of God to make "one and only" mean "unique" and missing the whole message God gave in that verse. It's like you could care less what's actually written if it goes against what you believe. Instead of conforming your beliefs to the word of God you're conforming the word of God to your beliefs.

It is the immediate context that dictates meaning, and both Genesis and Hebrews are speaking of things that were known to Abraham and Isaac. I'm not making monogenes mean unique it's what the word properly conveys in the language, early translators mistook it for "only begotten" because of the root fallacy but more complete word studies have shown that it is a term that simply means that it is alone in its class. In Hebrews, of Isaac, it is conveying that even though Abraham had 8 other sons Isaac was his only legitamate heir. Galatians is speaking of the same thing when it refers to Isaac who was heir to the promise, and us who became heirs to the promise through Christ. It is not saying Isaac was a born again Christian and to read that into the passage is nothing more than eisegesis.

 

[robycop3]

No it isn't "iysh", it's nothing... there is no Hebrew word for "him" in that verse. The pronominal suffix to "preserve" which is translated as "them" in Psalm 12:7, is in the third person masculine singular and that's why some translations say, "You will preserve HIM from this generation forever." instead of THEM. That's also why the KJV margin note says "him i. all of them". The KJV translators ALWAYS added margin notes where they were FORCED TO INTERPRET as part of their translation work.

That verse and many many other verses in the bible can only be translated by interpreting scripture first. Psalm 12:1-5 is about Jesus coming to liberate the Godly Jews from the wicked Jews as prophesied in the PURE INERRANT words of Lord that God promises to preserve forever.

The AV makers wrote, in a footnote, "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them" for the 2nd them in Ps, 12:7. Better check your source more-closely or ask a rabbi.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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:

View attachment 268837

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

So by this then the previous manuscripts including the Textus Receptus were not inspired by God since Psalms 118:8 only occurs in the center of the KJV and not in the center of any other version? The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus so why wouldn’t Psalms 118:8 be at the center of both of them if the translation is accurate?

 

[robycop3]

What does SACRIFICING the PASSOVER LAMB have to do with anything that happened to Jews in Egypt?

It's what God commanded them to do just prior to the Israelis' leaving Egypt. (The Jews are only part of Israel.)

 

[robycop3]

Can you post any verses that support the idea that God's word would eventually become corrupted?

God's word isn't corrupted; man's translations of it are.

 

[robycop3]

There are no prophecies in the scriptures about the KJV Bible so there can’t be any scriptural support for KJVO.

Therefore, the KJVO myth is false.

 

[Bob_1000]

So how are YOU doing the comparison or are you just reading KJVO websites? I DO read Biblical Greek, so I use the Septuagint for my OT and the 1904 Patriarch Text as my NT. The Scriptures are NOT their own dictionary. Translating them requires skill, linguistics and making sure that the translation makes sense to the reader while capturing the intent of the author.

Most KJV Only people are crackpots and fanatical idiots that don't even believe the KJV like they claim they do. They give KJV Only a bad name, I don't go to their websites.

How do I do comparisons? I don't. There's nothing in existence today to compare the bible to. The originals are long gone and the copies contradict their own selves. The only "verification" process is inerrancy and evidence of inspiration.

 

[Bob_1000]

There are no prophecies in the scriptures about the KJV Bible so there can’t be any scriptural support for KJVO.

There are no prophecies that name a specific bible by name but there are plenty of verses about the words of the Lord being pure, inspried and inerrant. It's up to us to figure out which one is the pure words of the Lord.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Most KJV Only people are crackpots and fanatical idiots that don't even believe the KJV like they claim they do. They give KJV Only a bad name, I don't go to their websites.

How do I do comparisons? I don't. There's nothing in existence today to compare the bible to. The originals are long gone and the copies contradict their own selves. The only "verification" process is inerrancy and evidence of inspiration.

So you decided on your own that the KJV is the correct one even though the TR was based on a handful of manuscripts that Erasmus was able to put together. I've decided that the LOLCat Bible is the correct translation since I have nothing else to compare it too. John 3:16-17 "So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, kthxbai!'Cuz teh Ceiling Kitteh not snd hiz son take all yur cookies, but so u cud maek moar cookies 4EVAR!"

 

[Bob_1000]

It is the immediate context that dictates meaning, and both Genesis and Hebrews are speaking of things that were known to Abraham and Isaac. I'm not making monogenes mean unique it's what the word properly conveys in the language, early translators mistook it for "only begotten" because of the root fallacy but more complete word studies have shown that it is a term that simply means that it is alone in its class. In Hebrews, of Isaac, it is conveying that even though Abraham had 8 other sons Isaac was his only legitamate heir. Galatians is speaking of the same thing when it refers to Isaac who was heir to the promise, and us who became heirs to the promise through Christ. It is not saying Isaac was a born again Christian and to read that into the passage is nothing more than eisegesis.

Why does the genealogy of Christ start with Adam in Luke but it starts with Abraham in Matthew? Keep in mind that those genealogies DON'T MATCH whatsoever. If you can understand why they differ then you should be able to understand what I've been trying to tell you.

 

[Bob_1000]

God's word isn't corrupted; man's translations of it are.

The bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God . You say all bibles are corrupt. So what your actually saying is that SCRIPTURE does not exist today. Is this what you believe?

 

[Bob_1000]

The AV makers wrote, in a footnote, "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them" for the 2nd them in Ps, 12:7. Better check your source more-closely or ask a rabbi.

Yes and I told you EXACTLY why they did that.

 

[pescador]

There are no prophecies that name a specific bible by name but there are plenty of verses about the words of the Lord being pure, inspried and inerrant. It's up to us to figure out which one is the pure words of the Lord.

That's impossible, since Jesus did not speak/read/write English, nor did any of the Biblical authors. IOW, one can never claim that any translation -- in any modern language (including 1611 Englyshe) -- is the "pure words of the Lord".

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are no prophecies that name a specific bible by name but there are plenty of verses about the words of the Lord being pure, inspried and inerrant. It's up to us to figure out which one is the pure words of the Lord.

So if those verses were not prophecy then they had to be in reference to the scriptures that were present at that time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God . You say all bibles are corrupt. So what your actually saying is that SCRIPTURE does not exist today. Is this what you believe?

All scripture at that time not all future versions.