The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

robycop3 said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Phil W said:

Don't you think they were mistaken in their assumption?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

DeaconDean said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

DeaconDean said:

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.

Click to expand...

Anybody who has studied the KJV KNOWS the Masoretic text is the underlining text for the entire Old Testament.

Click to expand...

How so, brother?

DeaconDean said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Phil W said:

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.

Click to expand...

God allowed the Latin Vulgate to be used for over a thousand years.....just sayin'

James Murphy said:

God allowed the Latin Vulgate to be used for over a thousand years.....just sayin'

Click to expand...

Have you studied it for errors?

Many have, hence the current Nova Vulgata…..

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

Gregory95 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

gradyll said:

is that really a proven fact?

Click to expand...

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

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Phil W said:

Do you feel any version should be used foremost?

Click to expand...

What's wrong with letting people use the version they were raised on?

I was raised on the KJV, however, when I was voted on to be a deacon and elder, the deacon that took me under his wing used the RSV.

Phil W said:

]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.

Click to expand...

I never said it was wrong.

I did say however:

DeaconDean said:

And I will freely admit that all the core doctrines that Christianity stands upon, none stand or fall on any of the "disputed" texts.

Click to expand...

If the KJV is the "only" version allowed, what happened in the 1578 years prior to 1611? How did the church survive without it?

Yes, the KJV has been around for that long, but there are other versions as well.

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.

DeaconDean said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DeaconDean said:

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.

Click to expand...

regarding following the masoretic text:
"the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful "

from the NIV preface.

so even if the masorites say it was a corrupted text, one could easily compare to those six sources and weed out any errors.

but that is simply from websites that say that the masorites claimed to recieve a corrupted text, I have not seen any pictures of authentic masorite scrolls that say such things. So it is not proven.

But even it it was, I answer it full above in both situations. True or untrue.

as far as sinaiticus forgery just because someone says a lie once, does not make them a proven liar. Or you would be a proven liar, and none of your posts should be read because you are a proven liar (I assume you have said a lie once or twice). Such reasoning is fallacious because just because we do something or struggle with a sin, does not make us a habitual sinner in that area. Grace and mercy of God show that our sin is forgiven, just not to practice it. And to say he practiced sinning by lying, one should quote several instances where he lied to prove that point. And that was not done. What needs to be understood is his original writings, which I referenced earlier. I will post 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.

------------
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.

the textus receptus (text behind NKJV) has no such allegations as to corruptness. They have been trusted for centuries.

Phil W said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

robycop3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

kiwimac said:

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.

Click to expand...

Didn't you notice the definition you provide for "perfect"?
It is "perfect".
The versions of the bible that substitute weakness for strength don't interest me a bit.