Anyone want to discuss KJVO ?

JIMINZ · Jun 25, 2020

robycop3 said:
And the AV men goofed in many places, or copied earlier goofs. I see no answer to the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4, nor the "and shalt be" ADDITION of words in Rev. 16:5.

I would ask in return.

Just what is your point, do you Doctrinally disagree with the word (EASTER), is it a misrepresentation to a Christians understanding of the Day itself?

Act 12:4
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after (EASTER) to bring him forth to the people.

Is it a gross misrepresentation of what any Christian who has read the Gospels has previously read.

John 19:14,15
14) And it was the preparation of the (PASSOVER) and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15) But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Is it not more so a Clarifying for the unlearned of the time (1611) and thereafter that the period of time when Christ was Crucified was the
(Jewish Passover) which is the Christian (Easter)?....Shame, Shame Unforgivable!

In the KJV the word Passover and Easter both use the same Strong's Number
G-3957

PASSOVER- EASTER:
G3957
πάσχα
pascha
pas'-khah
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter,

H6453
פֶּסַח
pesach
peh'-sakh
a pretermission, that is, exemption; used only technically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim): - passover (offering).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now are the addition of the three words in Rev.16:5 a gross misrepresentation of God, Jesus?

Did the Translators lie to the people who would read the text?

Rev. 16:5
And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord,
(which art, and wast, and shalt be,) because thou hast judged thus.

Heb. 13:8
Jesus Christ the same (YESTERDAY), and (TODAY), and (FOREVER).

Rev. 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Rev. 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev. 4:8
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

If those are examples of a NEED for change and a New Translation, your lacking.

SaintCody777 · Jun 25, 2020

The only logical basis behind KJV Onlyism that I find is about the Byzantine-Majority Text. But what I do find ironic is that even the version name itself, King James, implies that it is a Bible version written under the supervision of the Church of England under King James I. KJVOs would treat new Bible versions with disgrace because of a specific agenda behind a certain Bible version, like modernism and feminism.
But yet, they are easily ignorant of the fact that that KJV is called the "Authorized Version" because it was AUTHORIZED by a state church (Church of England) that was persecuting Catholics and Separatists.The pilgrims did not bring the KJV with them. So there definitely also must be an agenda for the C of E to purposefully alter texts in the translation process so that the Bible can seem to support their authoritarian agenda. So Holiness and Pentecostal KJVOs can't really take KJV as the Word of God written for their own doctrines, because the KJV had the English Reformation theology with Calvinism and Luther's doctrines in mind during the translation process.
Saying that the KJV was the only version that was purely breathed out by God is like saying that Communist China's (and WHO's) handling and scientific data on COVID-19 is the only trusted info for COVID-19 pandemic and how might it go.
How can you say that a Bible version translated under the supervision of a tyrant is the only Pure, unaltered word of God?

Gregory Thompson · Jun 25, 2020

robycop3 said:
I believe KJVO is not a true doctrine, as it has no Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself. Anyone wanna try to defend KJVO ?

I'm more of a KJVM proponent, meaning KJV maybe-ist.

Gregory Thompson · Jun 25, 2020

SaintCody777 said:
The only logical basis behind KJV Onlyism that I find is about the Byzantine-Majority Text. But what I do find ironic is that even the version name itself, King James, implies that it is a Bible version written under the supervision of the Church of England under King James I. KJVOs would treat new Bible versions with disgrace because of a specific agenda behind a certain Bible version, like modernism and feminism.
But yet, they are easily ignorant of the fact that that KJV is called the "Authorized Version" because it was AUTHORIZED by a state church (Church of England) that was persecuting Catholics and Separatists.The pilgrims did not bring the KJV with them. So there definitely also must be an agenda for the C of E to purposefully alter texts in the translation process so that the Bible can seem to support their authoritarian agenda. So Holiness and Pentecostal KJVOs can't really take KJV as the Word of God written for them because the KJV had English Reformation theology in mind during the translation process.
Saying that the KJV was the only version that was purely breathed out by God is like trusting Communist China's (and WHO's) handling and scientific data on COVID-19.
How can you say that a Bible version translated under the supervision of a tyrant is the only Pure, unaltered word of God?

I think an interesting tidbit that is overlooked is that the original KJV was released in 1611, but the one in the bookstores is from 1789. Since there were a lot of revisions until we came to the accepted version - this means the bible wasn't considered good enough by its contemporaries. In fact, those who did the translating went back to their original translations afterwards. So I'd imagine KJV is actually nothing special.

Dansiph · Jun 25, 2020

SaintCody777 said:
Saying that the KJV was the only version that was purely breathed out by God is like saying that

...

No one here is saying that.

I quoted the wrong thing somehow. I was trying to quote "But yet, they are easily ignorant of the fact that that KJV is called the "Authorized Version" because it was AUTHORIZED by a state church (Church of England) that was persecuting Catholics and Separatists."

Hardly anyone is ignorant of that. You have no point, most people who read the KJV know exactly where the term Authorised comes from.

JIMINZ · Jun 25, 2020

Sounds more like nobody trusts any version of the Bible, everyone is skeptical of everything because of Mans Doctrines and not interested in Gods words.

If what version you read is determined by what your particular version of Doctrine you might hold, then nobody is listening to what God had to say.

HARK! · Jun 25, 2020

Strong in Him said:
They are as accurate as people can make them.

They're as accurate as the buyers wish them to be.

Bible translations are market driven.

now faith · Jun 25, 2020

Well I would not care about anything from Egypt.
I guess you can practice cafeteria style theology, just take a bit from a bunch of translations and form a dogmatic view about the King James.
I am King James only,but I don't really care who does not like it.
Must be something about the King James that stirs up discord.
I do not see threads on are you NiV only?

HARK! · Jun 25, 2020

now faith said:
I do not see threads on are you NiV only?

I haven't seen anyone pushing NIV only. There might be some NIV salesmen out there with that slogan; but I haven't heard from them.

Lady Bug · Jun 26, 2020

I'm not KJVO but I'm suspicious of why there has to be so many modern versions after the KJV. I get that some people want more contemporary language, but isn't the NKJV modern enough English? I question a possible agenda of the proliferation of multitudes of translations when, IMHO, the NKJV is the only necessary modern-English translation that is needed.

Strong in Him · Jun 26, 2020

Lady Bug said:
I'm not KJVO but I'm suspicious of why there has to be so many modern versions after the KJV. I get that some people want more contemporary language, but isn't the NKJV modern enough English? I question a possible agenda of the proliferation of multitudes of translations when, IMHO, the NKJV is the only necessary modern-English translation that is needed.

It's not just about modern language, but about discoveries of new manuscripts, looking again at the Greek/Hebrew texts etc. I don't think people produce new translations of the Bible just for the fun/novelty of it.

Strong in Him · Jun 26, 2020

HARK! said:
They're as accurate as the buyers wish them to be.

Wrong way round - people produce the Bibles first, THEN others buy them.

robycop3 · Jun 26, 2020

JIMINZ said:
Who is that, what industry are you talking about?

There's a whole genre of literature pushing the KJVO myth. It appears some of your notions, such as "Modern versions are watered-down" comes from that trash.

Why is it sooooo wrong for others to feel so strongly and believe the way they do about the KJV when you don't?....You make it sound as though it is a bad thing to be zealous about what they believe and why.

Because it's a false doctrine that has no place in Christianity. In WW2,many Japanese believed so strongly in certain doctrines that they gave their lives, & some even killed themselves in their defence. BUT ARE THOSE DOCTRINES CORRECT ?

Does their belief diminish your Christian walk, do you feel as though you are less of a Christian because, you do not feel the same as they do about the KJV?

Christians have a D-U-T-Y to fight false doctrines of faith/worship whenever/wherever they come across them. And the KJVO myth IS false.

Or does it really come down to word usage of the modern man, as opposed to the thees, thy's, thou"s and thou"s of ages past?

No valid reason to read & try to understand GOD'S WORD, the most-important writings on earth, in outdated language when modern-language editions are readily available.

If the KJV is to difficult for you to read and understand, then by all means read the newer worded Translations.

I read Chaucer's works in their original English when I was a teenager, as well as virtually all of Shakespeare's works, etc, so the KJV's language was no challenge for me. But again, GOD'S WORD is the MOST-IMPORTANT writings we shall ever read, so why not read them in the language we use every day for everything else ? Why use a "Model T" Bible version when state-of-the-art "2020 Fusion" versions are readily available ?

Strong in Him · Jun 26, 2020

now faith said:
I am King James only,but I don't really care who does not like it.
Must be something about the King James that stirs up discord.

No, the discord comes from people who say that ONLY the KJV is the word of God; that it is perfect, that there is no other word of God - modern versions are CORRUPT.

Let's be clear - none of us mind anyone reading the KJV. It is a translation of the Bible, and brings salvation, hope, healing and blessing to many. It helps people to see Jesus.
But the claim that ONLY the KJV can do this, because it is perfect, is false.
The Gospel is the same in all translations of the Bible. And the only perfect Word of God, is Jesus.

robycop3 · Jun 26, 2020

Aspzan said:
Acts 12:4 - "after Easter"

I really feel as though I'm giving answers and while you might not agree with them you've got to at least admit I am answering?

I have carried on dialogue with Dr. Holland, and, while I readily agree that at one time in English, Easter was used for passover, Tyndale coined the word 'passover' in the 1530s, and by 1603, when work on the AV had begun, it had mostly replaced Easter as the English name for the paschal observance.

In fact, the AV 1611 included an "Easter-Finder" in its extratextual material. Those men certainly knew Easter & passover apart, believing Easter to be one of the 2 holiest days of the year, the other being Christmas.

And again, Easter simply didn't exist when Luke wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts. And in Luke's time, the Greek word 'pascha' meant only PASSOVER.

Gregory Thompson · Jun 26, 2020

HARK! said:
I haven't seen anyone pushing NIV only. There might be some NIV salesmen out there with that slogan; but I haven't heard from them.

That's probably because anyone who has read the NIV for a prolonged period of time may have noticed how the words they remember being in the NIV are no longer there, and the old version is no longer on biblegateway.com.

The NIV just isn't that kind of bible.

robycop3 · Jun 26, 2020

JIMINZ said:
That is just being petty, about something that really doesn't mean anything.

Would you consider an Exhaustive Concordance such as the Strong's to be the same or equal to an English Greek/Lexicon.

Based on the grounds the Strong;s Concordance is defining the specific Word, in the specific Verse, in the specific Chapter.

Isn't that a better way of grasping what the word in a specific Place actually means.

To me, that is where the Lexicon falls short.

Then there is the changing of the English words themselves, when this happens we are then looking at Greek word definitions that do not mean what was being conveyed, thereby changing the complete thought and understanding of a verse, or even a Chapter.

Most of the changes are for the better, such as the example I gave of Ex. 20:13. Plainly, God's intent in that command was to not commit MURDER, which is the wrongful taking of another person's life. OTOH, "kill" means to end the life of any living thing. Every time we eat, we kill something.

BTW, the "stronger Strong's" is an excellent concordance. And either Strong's often shows the KJV to be incorrect in many places. Another example-1 Tim. 6:10 where the KJV reads, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". We know this isn't true, as written in the KJV, with a prime example being ISIS, which commits a lot of evils,but not for money. a CORRECT rendering, according to the Greek is, "the love of silver (money) is A root of ALL KINDS of evil."

robycop3 · Jun 26, 2020

JIMINZ said:
That is just being petty, about something that really doesn't mean anything.

Would you consider an Exhaustive Concordance such as the Strong's to be the same or equal to an English Greek/Lexicon.

Based on the grounds the Strong;s Concordance is defining the specific Word, in the specific Verse, in the specific Chapter.

Isn't that a better way of grasping what the word in a specific Place actually means.

To me, that is where the Lexicon falls short.

Then there is the changing of the English words themselves, when this happens we are then looking at Greek word definitions that do not mean what was being conveyed, thereby changing the complete thought and understanding of a verse, or even a Chapter.

Sir, you may guess all you wish, but the FACTS are:

1.) Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".

2.) If it HAD then existed, neither Herod nor the Jewish religious leadership he was trying to please would've left off dealing with Peter to have observed it. Remember, those Jews wanted to kill all Christians & Herod was intending to turn Peter over to them to do with as they saw fit.

3.) "Pascha" is the same word JESUS HIMSELF used for passover. Do you believe Jesus observed Easter ?(LOL)

The Greek word pascha is a transliteration of the Hebrew word "p'sach", the word GOD used when He gave the passover command to Israel.

Thus, "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 remains a GOOF.

Radagast · Jun 26, 2020

fewme said:
Bueno, no estoy muy seguro de la relevancia que tales argumentos pudieran tener en hablantes de otros idiomas, lo que quizás, por analogía podría incluír el inglés moderno.

I hope you can see my point here.

C'était aussi ma pensée.

Radagast · Jun 26, 2020

JIMINZ said:
the KJV has the best definitions of said words, all other so called Translations are watered down for the people to be able to read in English, not in order to understand what was being said in Greek.

Well, no. Other translations are better.

JIMINZ said:
Are there any other Exhaustive Concordances, such as the Strong's for the KJV which give usages for these other Translations?

Strongs has nothing to do with the KJV per se; it is a concordance of Greek words in a Greek text, plus a numbering system for Greek words.

You can do the same thing with any Greek text and any corresponding translation. See, for example, John 1 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Anyone want to discuss KJVO ?

Well-Known Member

The young, curious Berean

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

שמע

Veteran

שמע

Thankful For My Confirmation

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Newbie

Great is thy faithfulness

Newbie

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Newbie

Newbie

comes and goes

comes and goes

Similar threads