The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Hello again Robycop3,

robycop3 said:

This statement from Thomas nelson Publishing is one source for some of my statements about the NKJV:

Click to expand...

Actually it is from a press release put out by Thomas Nelson.
Thomas Nelson is a subsidiary of Harper Collins which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
A press release is a marketing tool the objective of which is to sell product (in this case books).
Perhaps a note from The Executive Editor of the NKJV might clarify things:
The New King James Version, as the name implies, is not a completely new translation but a conservative and careful revision of that most influential Bible translation in any modern language, the Authorized or King James Version. The New King James Version in the Great Tradition by Arthur L. Farstad, (1989)
And here is what Thomas Nelson Bibles put out as well (but not as a promo piece:
The purpose of the New King James Version is to preserve the authority and accuracy, as well as the rhythm and beauty, of the original King James Version while making it understandable to current readers. The result is a Bible translation, scrupulously faithful to the original, yet truly updated to enhance its clarity and readability.

robycop3 said:

And I believe πάντων can mean "some of all kinds" or "all sorts/kinds".

Click to expand...

It is a bit of a stretch and we can debate it, but your rendering is valid enough for consideration. The problem is that in this verse πάντων τῶν κακῶν (of all of the evils) is plural construct and all other instances of this construct I am aware in Ancient, Classical and Biblical Greek are singular. For this and other reasons I do not think it is an improvement on the original… but we can discuss the implications of this in a different thread.
With regard to using the term Easter we can disagree. However there is evidence in Paul’s writings that the Apostles were heeding Jesus words “to do this in remembrance of me”.

robycop3 said:

The translation is supposed to reflect the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S thoughts

Click to expand...

I agree. Do you think Paul or Luke’s thoughts were on Jewish Passover commemorations or were their thoughts on their Savior? I think that as human beings we all know that just like we today commemorate those who fell on 9/11 so too would the early Christians commemorate the Christian importance of their Passover: Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: This indicates that they (Christians) had their Christ centered commemoration and others (Jews) had theirs. The translators’ decision to use the term Easter in that context I see as appropriate… partially because it makes one pause and think as it raises the very issue you have brought up.
To criticize it as some blunder seems shortsighted as there were 10 scholars (3 Greek authorities) on the committee that oversaw the KJV translation of the Gospels, Acts and Revelation. Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection are the pivotal event of Jesus’ life and ministry and I seriously doubt that one of the 10 would not have caught it if it were a mistake. In addition William Tyndale translates πάσχα as Easter (Estern) in that same verse in his early translation of Acts. The scholars translating for the KJV more than likely knew that. I believe that their use of the term Easter deserves very serious consideration.

With love,
Howard

Howard Beale said:

To criticize it as some blunder seems shortsighted as there were 10 scholars (3 Greek authorities) on the committee that oversaw the KJV translation of the Gospels, Acts and Revelation. Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection are the pivotal event of Jesus’ life and ministry and I seriously doubt that one of the 10 would not have caught it if it were a mistake. In addition William Tyndale translates πάσχα as Easter (Estern) in that same verse in his early translation of Acts. The scholars translating for the KJV more than likely knew that. I believe that their use of the term Easter deserves very serious consideration.

With love,
Howard

Click to expand...

I still think it's better to just use the term Pascha (or some variant.. as most of the Christian world uses). It doesn't mean one is acknowledging the validity Jewish Passover. We're still taking it as our own.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Now that says a lot..........I call it the KJperVersion

Click to expand...

straykat said:

I still think it's better to just use the term Pascha (or some variant.. as most of the Christian world uses). It doesn't mean one is acknowledging the validity Jewish Passover. We're still taking it as our own.

Click to expand...

robycop3 said:

Gents, we must remember some things about the conditions under which the AV was made: First, the writing materials, lighting, etc. were primitive compared to now. Next, the translators did NOT work full-time on the project. They weren't being paid, and so only worked on it as they found time. That's why it took so long. Third, there are over 700K words in the text of the AV. Some human error is inevitable.

And again, had they CONSISTENTLY used Easter for pascha, we could chalk it up to the now-archaic language style, but once outta 29 times seems to be more of a goof than anything else to me.

Click to expand...

I agree that the context does state that woman was desiring mans role, as lead. As most expository commentaries suggest, But the text itself says more of what the KJV does, literally the word means a desire "toward" so "to" is real close. It's important with translations to have one that does not put theological viewpoints into the text, and simply translates what was in greek and hebrew in a literal fashion. Because theologians differ on many areas, and especially end times. So to have a theologian/translator arbitrarily putting theology into the text of the Bible would be wrong. But regarding the manuscript behind the ESV, there is some questions as to it's legitimacy.

robycop3 said:

Gents, we must remember some things about the conditions under which the AV was made: First, the writing materials, lighting, etc. were primitive compared to now. Next, the translators did NOT work full-time on the project. They weren't being paid, and so only worked on it as they found time. That's why it took so long. Third, there are over 700K words in the text of the AV. Some human error is inevitable.

And again, had they CONSISTENTLY used Easter for pascha, we could chalk it up to the now-archaic language style, but once outta 29 times seems to be more of a goof than anything else to me.

Click to expand...

I think we can agree that the followers of Jesus would not have been commemorated His crucifixion, death and resurrection until after He was crucified, died, was buried and rose again. You may think that the scholars who translated the KJV were slipshod but I don’t think you believe that the Apostle or anyone else commemorated Jesus’ crucifixion death and resurrection before it happened,

Given that, outta the 29 times you reference that passover appears in the NT, 27 of them are in verses prior to Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection. That leaves only 2 verses that address the passover after Jesus’ crucifixion death and resurrection and of those 2 remaining verses one (Hebrews 11:28) is in reference to Moses and the first passover in Egypt. That leaves Hebrews 11:28 as the only verse written about the first passover after Jesus’ crucifixion death and resurrection 1 Corinthians 5:7

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

The verse does not say “that ye may make a new lump” it says “ye may be a new lump”. Paul is obviously not taking about bread. He is talking about those he is writing to be renewed. A theme he had addressed in other epistles to the Corinthians as well as the Ephesians and others.

So Paul is saying
1. Throw out the old
2. That you may be new
3. For our Passover (Easter) which Christ was sacrificed for (clearly a reference to the Paschal Lamb).

It is very clear that Paul was initiating a new Passover commemoration and thereby following the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 5:17) who did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

You may not like it or agree with it and I do not think it is becoming to disparage Tyndale and the scholars who worked on the KJV, but it is a rendering that merits serious consideration and that may well be on valid theological ground.

With love,
Howard

robycop3 said:

What i consider is that the AV makers clearly knew what Easter is-the observance of Jesus' resurrection, the central event of Christendom. They also knew passover is the commemorization of Israel's exodus from Egypt & their crossing of the Reed sea, an observance ordained by God for Israel FOREVER.

Easter did NOT exist when Luke wrote "Acts" If he had meant anything other than passover in Acts 12:4, he woulda used the name for that observance, not the word for passover. Thus, I believe "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a GOOF.

Click to expand...

If you read the verses prior you will see that Luke was speaking about the Jews – Herod’s mistreatment of Christians (12:1), the assassination of James (12:2), the arrest of Peter and the note that these were the passover days of unleavened bread and not one word is mentioned in Acts 12 about any apostle or Christian celebrating Jewish pascha. But in Corinthians Paul is writing about Christ being our (Christian) Passover. Christian Passover may well be appropriately called Easter… same commemorative observance- different era, different word, same religious practice.

Also, Easter is not solely the observance of Jesus’ resurrection. Easter Sunday is the observance of Jesus’ resurrection. The entire week prior is traditionally considered Easter Week and the last days of that week are the Easter Triduum with the Easter Vigil and then Easter Sunday

You have your beliefs as I have mine. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine. I do not see any need to further beat the dead horse.

Warmest regards.

With Love,
Howard

robycop3 said:

What i consider is that the AV makers clearly knew what Easter is-the observance of Jesus' resurrection, the central event of Christendom. They also knew passover is the commemorization of Israel's exodus from Egypt & their crossing of the Reed sea, an observance ordained by God for Israel FOREVER.

Easter did NOT exist when Luke wrote "Acts" If he had meant anything other than passover in Acts 12:4, he woulda used the name for that observance, not the word for passover. Thus, I believe "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a GOOF.

Click to expand...

Howard Beale said:

If you read the verses prior you will see that Luke was speaking about the Jews – Herod’s mistreatment of Christians (12:1), the assassination of James (12:2), the arrest of Peter and the note that these were the passover days of unleavened bread and not one word is mentioned in Acts 12 about any apostle or Christian celebrating Jewish pascha. But in Corinthians Paul is writing about Christ being our (Christian) Passover. Christian Passover may well be appropriately called Easter… same commemorative observance- different era, different word, same religious practice.

Also, Easter is not solely the observance of Jesus’ resurrection. Easter Sunday is the observance of Jesus’ resurrection. The entire week prior is traditionally considered Easter Week and the last days of that week are the Easter Triduum with the Easter Vigil and then Easter Sunday

You have your beliefs as I have mine. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine. I do not see any need to further beat the dead horse.

Warmest regards.

With Love,
Howard

Click to expand...

constantine was the first to coin the term easter. It was a christianization of a pagan holiday, the same thing he did with christmas. It was a pagan nation, instead of getting rid of the fun, he blended or rather substituted pagan holidays for christian ones. He called is Easter, because it was similar to Ishtar. The only things that got retained from paganism, are the christmas trees, the eggs, the easter bunnies etc. But seeing america does not view the easter bunny as a sex symbol, it's safe to say the worship of Ishtar is long been over. But I agree with the other poster here, Easter was not something that the diciples or Christ used as a term, and came centuries later. So yes, in this case the KJV should have said something else. But over all the KJV and even moreso the NKJV uses literal greek and hebrew transliterations, or as close as word for word you can get. It's important to put easter, or other commentary in the side margins and not in the actual text. Which 99% of modern translations are really wrong as it relates to all of this. IF you want to see how literal a translation is, count the words. And compare for example to the words of greek. If you have twice as many words, as you do in some modern translations, you have half are the words of man, half are the words of God.

robycop3 said:

Please remember that English is a more-exact language than any of the Scriptural ones, and the English definition of a given old-language word often requires several English words to be correct as possible.

Click to expand...

an interlinear uses the least amount of words and is the most accurate. So I don't think the above statement is correct. But I like the interesting facts about easter, thanks.

robycop3 said:

Well, actually, the statement IS correct. An easy example is the Hebrew "re'em", rendered "unicorn" in the KJV, and usually "wild ox" in newer versions. While its EXACT definition is unknown, it's hard to define it correctly as possible with one English word. The closest correct meaning we now know is "a large herbivorous beast". There are many other such words in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek as well.

But at any rate, none of the people mentioned in Acts 12 were observing Easter or anything similar.

Click to expand...

that is not what I meant, I meant that literal translations usually have less words. Look at the NAS versus the NLT or other new translation. I don't like the MSS behind the NAS but I included it for reference. Here is why I don't like the newer manuscripts (alexandrian). There are a lot of verses the church fathers quote that have been left out of the new manuscripts, "Now there are those who would argue that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in some of the earliest manuscripts. It is true that these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not found in the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, which are both a part of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. However, it is interesting to note that the early church fathers, Iranius, who lived from AD 140 to 202, and Hippolatus, who lived from AD 170 to 235, both quote from these last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. Now the argument that some of the scholars give is that because this portion of Mark's Gospel does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the oldest complete manuscripts that we possess (though it really is not complete), they say that this passage then was inserted later on by a copier. However, Codex Sinaiticus actually dates back to sometime into the AD 400s. They do not know the exact date, however 420 to 460 are the dates that are usually established for the Codex Sinaiticus. Here is Iranius, one of the church fathers, 200 years before the Codex Sinaiticus was ever copied and he is quoting, no doubt, from an earlier manuscript. And so, the overwhelming evidence is that the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel actually were in the original manuscripts and somehow got deleted from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which comes, as I say, from the same Alexandrian family of manuscripts."- Chuck Smith (blue letter Bible)

robycop3 said:

There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

Now, while one may PREFER the KJV (or any other one version), telling others that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is telling a lie.

Why pick on KJVO? Because that man-made myth has created a whole genre of literature, full of falsehoods, playing right into Satan's hands by causing strife and dissent among & between congregations.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**

Click to expand...

I know the word of God can be found in the king James bible.

psalm911 said:

I know the word of God can be found in the king James bible.

Click to expand...

I know it can also be found in the ESV, the NASB, the RSV, the NIV, the CSB, ect. ect. ect.

James Murphy said:

I know it can also be found in the ESV, the NASB, the RSV, the NIV, the CSB, ect. ect. ect.

Click to expand...

I will say this, I received the Holy Ghost by believing on Jesus through the word of God in the book of Matthew in the king James Bible. I know truly if men have ears to hear the word of God, he will find the gift of faith in the king James Bible.

Recommended for all:
The King James Only Controversy