The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think all of the major translations are good, barring stuff like the books used by the JW or Mormons. All of them point to Jesus' divinity, and include his teachings.
Funny thing is, the Mormons are really big on using.....(wait for it)…..the King James!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dave-W
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I love the KJV, and sympathize with some of the points KJV-Only types are frustrated with.. but I'm not exclusive to it. I'd completely be open to dropping it for a more modern translation, if one simply followed the same principles behind the KJV. Rather than giving the KJV any mystical importance on it's own, it's simply the principles behind it that made it great. And these could happen again.

Most important are which:
Reliance on historical readings throughout Church history, and not simply devotion to the Masoretic texts. While the KJV translated from Hebrew, it departed when the MT was too much at odds with classical LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate (and/or Church father) readings more often than not. Some of these readings have actually proved to be older from the Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so one could just use that as well.

Use a Majority/Patriarchal based NT

Be literal, and if you can't be literal, be poetic. Also, stop trying to be too creative with passages we've all come to know from literal readings. Try as some might, they're not going to reinvent the wheel. For example, stop trying to be creative with rearranging the Lord's Prayer so much. This is just one example, but there are hundreds of things (if not thousands) in the English consciousness and lexicon that were passed down through cultural memory from reading the KJV (or other literal texts). Even little things that people say in everyday speech. Like "I fought the good fight", "at their wit's end", "fall flat on their face", etc.. And some modern translations are so pedestrian my head has to sink. There's no poetry to some of it. Instead of "I fought the good fight", you get something dull like "I competed well". :|
----

KJV only types recognize the above as important too, so maybe I'm not saying anything new. But I offer one more they usually don't agree with:

Include the Apocrypha like the KJV. I don't want Protestant exclusive bibles. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Interestingly enough, there's a parallel movement amongst Trad Catholics that is Douay Rheims or (more extreme) Vulgate Only ('cuz Stone Cold Trent sez so). You see the same bad arguments being made, to the point where you have to wonder "Who's borrowing from whom?"
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I see so much misinformation regarding Biblical translations in this thread that I hope (given the time) I can go through all of them.

The first items to address have to do with criticism of the translation of the names James and Isaiah in the KJV

Isaiah
Isaiah’s name in the Hebrew OT would is יְשַׁעְיָה [Yĕsha`yah]. In Matthew 12:17 and elsewhere in the NT his name in the original Greek is rendered as Ἠσαΐας [Ēsaïas ]. In the Latin Vulgate [4th Century AD] his name was rendered as Esaias which is the transliteration from the Greek of the NT. So prior to the anglicization of the Greek, the KJV rendering of the name of יְשַׁעְיָה is not only correct, it is closer to the original Greek by using transliteration than modern English translations.

James
Jesus’ brother James' name in Matthew 1:1 and throughout the NT in the original Greek is Ἰάκωβος [Iakōbos] whereas the Greek for Jacob is Ἰακώβ [Iakōb]. Take note of the difference. James is a cognate of Jacob.

Greek had become the dominant language in Galilee for centuries prior to Jesus and we have no record of James the brother of Jesus’ name in Hebrew.

By the way:

Jesus
Being a Jew, Jesus’ given name would be ישוע [Yeshuwa]. In the same Matthew 1:1 noted above, His name in the original Greek (in all the translation) is Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous ] which was then rendered in the Latin Vulgate as Iesu and then anglicized in translation and rendered as Jesus.

The KJV translators were correct in their rendering of those names.

With love,
Howard
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I see NO KJVO responses here to the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support, thereby making it false. The MAN-MADE origin of the current KJVO myth is very-evident.

nothing wrong with being KJV-PREFERRED, but telling someone that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there is SPREADING A LIE!

That is so true... no translation is perfect.

In my studies, with all its flaws, the KJV is still the best translation in that it holds closest to the original Greek of the NT and the Hebrew of the OT. If I were to recommend a path to understanding of the Holy Scriptures I would recommend that one study them in the original languages.

With love,
Howard
 
  • Like
Reactions: straykat
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have an issue with regard to their 20th Century NT Translation of Luke 4:18.

The KJV translates the entire verse 18 including original Greek "he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted".
20th Century doesn’t even include this in their translation. This a serious enough flaw which should make one very hesitant to use this “translation” without serious vetting of each verse.

With love,
Howard
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Unfortunately, due to English not differentiating between singular and plural “you,” that has to suffice to keep it from referring to within an individual. It is within the group. “Among” is the best way to do that.

The Kingdom is NEVER an individual thing.

English grammar and syntax do not change the meaning of the Greek. That is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The original (in this case the Greek) determines the meaning of the translation (in this case the English). The cart does not pull the horse.

To support your contention you need cite instances of the Greek term “entos” being used to denote “among” or “in the midst of” prior to and during the time of Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: straykat
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Interestingly enough, there's a parallel movement amongst Trad Catholics that is Douay Rheims or (more extreme) Vulgate Only ('cuz Stone Cold Trent sez so). You see the same bad arguments being made, to the point where you have to wonder "Who's borrowing from whom?"

What we usually see as the Douay Rheims is actually the Challoner revision. He was a convert and was previously familiar with and quite fond of the English of the KJV, and revised the mess of the original DR to read a bit like the KJV. The original was too close to the syntax and word order of the Latin of the Vulgate and would be a mess in English. Compare Hebrews 1, for example:

Rheims 1582
Diversely and many ways in times past God speaking to the fathers in the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom he made also the worlds. Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and carrying all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty in the high places; being made so much better than angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name above them.

Challoner 1752
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high, being made so much better than the Angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.


I'm sure you see the difference (compare it to the KJV and see how closely it resembles it). So often, when you see people being "Douay Rheims Only", they're not all that different and in a way holding up the KJV too (although Challoner didn't get all of the "Latinisms" out of his revision). Secondly, the source texts behind the KJV and the Vulgate are very similar (and similar to the Septuagint and Patriarchal NT for Orthodox as well), and all come from a whole line of scripture readings witnessed in Patristic writings as well. It's only natural that they wouldn't want to part with what has effectively been how the Church OF ALL BRANCHES knew the scriptures for 2000 years. It's only until the end of the 19th century that somehow more value was given to solely Masoretic readings (which even the KJV departed from at times) or Alexandrian readings in the NT.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kiwimac
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
it is correct that the king james is not the inspired word of God, only the original manuscripts are. Not even the copies. That is why it's important to be accurate in scribal copying. But what worries me about modern translations, is a forgery issue, that is not prevailant in the majority text (that the KJV comes from), here let me explain: sinaiticus is 1/3rd of every modern translation. also I found this online while researching, in a scholarly forum and no one seemed to address this guys post:
The question of Sinaiticus authenticity toward a wild turn after the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery


and another poster confirmed this with this post:

I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: straykat
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
it is correct that the king james is not the inspired word of God, only the original manuscripts are. Not even the copies. That is why it's important to be accurate in scribal copying. But what worries me about modern translations, is a forgery issue, that is not prevailant in the majority text (that the KJV comes from), here let me explain: sinaiticus is 1/3rd of the every modern translation. also I found this online while researching, in a scholarly forum and no one seemed to address this guys post:
The question of Sinaiticus authenticity toward a wild turn after the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery


and another poster confirmed this with this post:

I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.

It's a pretty intriguing story, part comedy and part tragedy, where German Rationalists, Orthodox monks, and Scofield Adherents all play a role.

 
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 pretty intriguing story, part comedy and part tragedy, where German Rationalists, Orthodox monks, and Scofield Adherents all play a role.

accept scofield uses the majority manuscripts, the ones that are alleged frauds are the Sinaiticus manuscripts (the one's the NIV, ESV, NASB use). The fact that there are whitened leaves, and the ones that are not whitened are not as old as they should be for the 4th century. It looks like there was tampering to say the least, and one guy actually confessed to tampering it: Simonides. Here is an interesting tidbit from another thread on this topic: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim? There is a second source that claims He forged it:
In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that

...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself. Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

straykat

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
1,120
640
Catacombs
✟22,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
accept scofield uses the majority manuscripts, the ones that are alleged frauds are the Sinaiticus manuscripts (the one's the NIV, ESV, NASB use). The fact that there are whitened leaves, and the ones that are not whitened are not as old as they should be for the 4th century. It looks like there was tampering to say the least, and one guy actually confessed to tampering it: Simonides. Here is an interesting tidbit from another thread on this topic: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim?

I'm talking about the writer giving that speech. He seems to be a Scofield adherent. I just find it funny that this issue has brought in a whole cast of characters from the church. It's all converging on this spot.

I don't think Simonides was a culprit at all (like he points out - Simonides was on record going against Tischendorf). I'm Orthodox myself - you'll find that most Orthodox churches in English prefer the KJV as well, and rely on a Byzantine text in Greek churches (the Patriarchal text put together in 1904 or so, but is basically similar to a Textus Receptus, with a handful of differences), while the Russian Synodal translation is a TR bible too.
 
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

WannaWitness

Shining God's Light for a Lost World.
Aug 31, 2004
19,072
4,909
50
✟149,993.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.

I hear you on that. Even in the preface of the original KJV the translators suggested that other translations should be used. I mean, who can argue with that?

This link was one of the first sources I found when I began casual research on this issue, but the link seems to be dead, so I found a copy of the page via the Wayback Machine, the most recent snapshot from February 2018.

Robert Joyner - Were the KJV Translators KJV Only?

The following link is a more recent find.

6 Surprising Ideas the KJV Translators Had about Other Bible Translations

I personally see nothing wrong with KJV. In fact, I use it myself, and my actual preference is for NKJV (New King James), which I immediately fell in love with after a pastor gave me one as a high school graduation gift years ago. I will read other translations too, but I also take great care to steer clear of outlandish paraphrases (and I've seen some pretty crazy ones) and translations from cults that really do twist the Scriptures into false teachings, and are sneaky and subtle about it (for example, John 1:1, which says "the Word was God" in most translations, reads as follows in the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witness church: "the word was a god", which is completely contrary to Christian doctrine, and should be a given). I also fully believe that if one prefers KJV and are uncomfortable with other translations (even the KJV alternative NKJV), then he/she should stick with that, but be careful not to fall into the legalism trap by condemning fellow Christians who disagree.

All that said, everyone is going to be convicted differently on this.
 
Last edited:
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'm talking about the writer giving that speech. He seems to be a Scofield adherent. I just find it funny that this issue has brought in a whole cast of characters from the church. It's all converging on this spot.

I don't think Simonides was a culprit at all (like he points out - Simonides was on record going against Tischendorf). I'm Orthodox myself - you'll find that most Orthodox churches in English prefer the KJV as well, and rely on a Byzantine text in Greek churches (the Patriarchal text put together in 1904 or so, but is basically similar to a Textus Receptus, with a handful of differences), while the Russian Synodal translation is a TR bible too.

we can all have oppinions, but we must base them on fact. I posted an eye witness that confirmed Simonides confession that he wrote the sinaiticus. I personally believed he copied large portions of text from existing biblical manuscripts then added text. What was added we don't know, but we do know at least the books of barnabus were added. And this would make it a counterfeit. Due to the fact he was compiling books and claiming they were authentic.
 
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
Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have long ago been debunked:
In Response to Chris Pinto | Alpha and Omega Ministries
there are six responses given by white, three of them have already been addressed, I will try to reply to the other three in a little bit. I think pinto was simply caught off guard as white is a good debater. That does not make his points correct. But thanks for pointing it out, in fact here are the bullet points from the same website: Simonides | Alpha and Omega Ministries. Also in conclusion I could say that the sinaiticus found by tischendorf was a conspiracy theory as well. But ad hominem attack does not suite this forum very well, and is not very Biblical. so please don't call things conspiracy theories that have not been proven so. I try to respect other people, and ask that they be civil in return.
 
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
Status
Not open for further replies.