More time has passed, & still no Dr. Jack! Guess the fact of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth has stumped & stymied him, as it has every other KJVO who's tried to face it. Let's hope it steers him away from that false doctrine!
Upvote
0
My concern isn't KJVO. It's all the new translations that should technically be called paraphrases. NIV, new living, the mesage, good news for modern man.More time has passed, & still no Dr. Jack! Guess the fact of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth has stumped & stymied him, as it has every other KJVO who's tried to face it. Let's hope it steers him away from that false doctrine!
Don't you think they were mistaken in their assumption?
is that really a proven fact? I heard the sinaiticus was forged by a known forger. It just happens that all modern translations ESV, NASB, NIV all come from it.You want to know what's really funny?
Anybody who has studied the KJV KNOWS the Masoretic text is the underlining text for the entire Old Testament.
As early as AD 160, the Masorites freely admit they HAD a "corrupted text".
From AD 160 to AD 1200, it was still a "corrupted text".
No matter how many times its written and re-written, you cannot "un-corrupt" a corrupted text.
Its exactly like adding a drop of black ink to a glass of water. No matter how many times you filter it, there will always be a "trace" of ink in it.
And I will freely admit that all the core doctrines that Christianity stands upon, none stand or fall on any of the "disputed" texts.
Is the KJV "perfect"? No.
Is there any scriptural support that the KJV is the only version you should use? No.
It is the best loved version ever written.
I love my KJV, but when preaching, and/or studying, I also use my Greek Bible as well.
God Bless
Till all are one.
You want to know what's really funny?
Anybody who has studied the KJV KNOWS the Masoretic text is the underlining text for the entire Old Testament.
As early as AD 160, the Masorites freely admit they HAD a "corrupted text".
From AD 160 to AD 1200, it was still a "corrupted text".
No matter how many times its written and re-written, you cannot "un-corrupt" a corrupted text.
Its exactly like adding a drop of black ink to a glass of water. No matter how many times you filter it, there will always be a "trace" of ink in it.
And I will freely admit that all the core doctrines that Christianity stands upon, none stand or fall on any of the "disputed" texts.
Is the KJV "perfect"? No.
Is there any scriptural support that the KJV is the only version you should use? No.
It is the best loved version ever written.
I love my KJV, but when preaching, and/or studying, I also use my Greek Bible as well.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Anybody who has studied the KJV KNOWS the Masoretic text is the underlining text for the entire Old Testament.
Do you feel any version should be used foremost?No.
You really believe that every seminary should make the KJV the ONLY version that is allowed to be taught from?
Seriously?!?
God Bless
Till all are one.
God allowed the Latin Vulgate to be used for over a thousand years.....just sayin'Do you feel any version should be used foremost?
If the KJV of the bible is "wrong", why did God allow it's use for 400 years?
That would seem to short-change 4 centuries of those seeking Godliness on earth.
I have some old bibles too. I don't touch them much I don't want to ruin them. They just look pretty. But my regular Bible is marked up with use. My only flaw is that I don't do my daily devotions with my real bible, I do it with the you version bible app, so I can't take notes. But it does allow you to copy and paste. I love the nicky gumbel devotions through the Bible. Best devotional I have ever read, better than spurgeon's morning and evening, better than streams in the desert, better than the daily bread. It's just superior because it takes devotions from the section of Bible your reading. When you select through the Bible with you version, it allows you to choose your devotional, make sure you choose nicky gumbel.Love my 1850s NT translated from original Greek but all Bibles ive seen say the same thing sometimes worded different but message is the same i just love the old stuff
is that really a proven fact?
I heard the sinaiticus was forged by a known forger. It just happens that all modern translations ESV, NASB, NIV all come from it.
The Codex Sinaiticus is a Fake!
Do you feel any version should be used foremost?
]If the KJV of the bible is "wrong", why did God allow it's use for 400 years?
That would seem to short-change 4 centuries of those seeking Godliness on earth.
And I will freely admit that all the core doctrines that Christianity stands upon, none stand or fall on any of the "disputed" texts.
The correct one is the one that says "That the man of God may be perfect...", in 2 Tim 3:17...instead of "complete" or some other diluting word.And if:
"God allow it's use for 400 years" pray tell which "revision" is the correct one by God's standard?
They (KJ tranlators) originally issued the "Authorized Version" in 1611. The KJV you have now, is based upon the 1769 version.
God Bless
Till all are one.
regarding following the masoretic text:Yes it is.
"Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?
History says “no” . . .
Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.
In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text."
Source
Listen, the person who claimed to have forged Sinaiticus, is a proven liar, and forger. There is no way possible for him to have produced Sinaiticus in the time allowed. 4,000,000 lines of text, all written in Greek, in 3 separate writing styles, by a person who his own teachers said barely had a "rudimentary" knowledge of the Greek.
There is a thread in Christian Philosophy and Ethics already on this.
God Bless
Till all are one.
The correct one is the one that says "That the man of God may be perfect...", in 2 Tim 3:17...instead of "complete" or some other diluting word.
Good point. Likewise, anything which happened in history after the Bible was written is not true unless it has scriptural support. Ditto for any human ideas since then.There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.
Didn't you notice the definition you provide for "perfect"?The Greek word for 'perfect' , "ἄρτιος" means:
LSJ Gloss:
ἄρτιος
complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted
Dodson:
ἄρτιος
perfect, complete
perfect, complete, fitted, ready.
Strong's:
ἄρτιος
fresh, i.e. (by implication) complete
Rather than trying to make the KJV the rule by which others are judged perhaps you might consider Koine Greek classes.