The KJVO myth...

Bible Highlighter said:

Uh… no. We can see that the KJB stands above the rest in regards to be more pure in doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. You can check the list of doctrines that are changed here. You can check out a list of commands that are changed here.

Click to expand...

What old Greek manuscript has the KJV reading of 1J 5:7? None.

So its not a dogmatic question "which reading is more comfortable for the doctrine", but its a textual question "was the reading originally there?"

Modern translations do not have the KJV reading of the verse because this reading cannot be found in manuscripts. Thats all. It was added by the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages from the Latin Vulgate.

And even though the addition sounds nice, its simply not original and therefore should not be used as an evidence in a theological debate, anyway. Nobody cares you have it in your medieval Bible print, the verse is not in manuscripts and therefore is not authoritative.

Bible Highlighter said:

So you take it by faith.

Click to expand...

robycop3 said:

That's how we got God's word. And I don't know what became of the many mss. that Hermann Hoskier collated.

Click to expand...

No offense again, but this sounds like you are taking Herman Hoskier’s words by faith and you did not actually check out these manuscripts for yourself to determine if they truly are the divine and perfect Word of God. Can you point me to a perfect Bible today? You don’t appear to have one that you can tangibly point to and read and prove and say it is the perfect Word of God personally.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Bible Highlighter said:

Uh… no. We can see that the KJB stands above the rest in regards to be more pure in doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. You can check the list of doctrines that are changed here. You can check out a list of commands that are changed here.

Click to expand...

Which is your opinion. As such, we don't have to actually listen to and do what your opinion says.

Isilwen said:

So then all translations are fine, per the scripture posted and your words.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I am not saying all translations are fine. If you were to read all of my words, you would know that I am not in favor of Modern Translations because they attack the Trinity, water down verses on the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, holy living, etc., etc.

You said:

BTW, not all of the language in the KJV is updated and that is still an issue for me as it's not the vernacular I use.

Click to expand...

And like I said…. This should not be an issue if you define difficult words with older dictionaries (like the Websters) and or you look at Modern Translation, etc.

You said:

I also still believe that this whole thing about the KJV being the only suitable Bible to be from the pits of hell. As only the father of lies could come up with such to divide the masses.

Click to expand...

But what if you are wrong? You would be speaking against God’s very words in claiming they are bad when in reality they are good. That’s a very dangerous position to be in - IMHO.

Now, I can say Modern Translations are tainted by way of comparison to the King James Bible because it’s simply a fact if one were to do the study. In my experience: Most just want to bury their head in the sand and just blindly follow what their church says or what some scholar says.

Isilwen said:

Which is your opinion. As such, we don't have to actually listen to and do what your opinion says.

Click to expand...

No. These are not opinions, but they are facts that you can see for yourself. Commands have actually been changed. Doctrines have actually been changed. Even if they were not changed per say, by way of comparison we can see that the King James Bible is superior in doctrine and it’s commands (for instruction in righteousness) when one compares it to the Modern Translations. Then there is the devil’s name placed in Modern Translations where they don’t belong, either. There are so many red flags that it would make one think they were in a Russian airport. But of course, people see what they want to see for their own reasons.

robycop3 said:

I'm not hunting such a version at all. I use what God has made available to me, and trust Him to have given me what He wants me to have. And I don't try to limit Him to any one version. Sure, they read differently, but so do the four Gospels in any given version, although they're all narrations of the same events. And all have been accepted as Scripture from the gitgo.

Click to expand...

So you have no perfect Word of God today that you can read? How do you trust one word is true over another word being false? We cannot be the arbiters of truth when it comes to what words are from God or not in His Word. We don’t have a Bible truth detector machine or device. The only way we can determine the true Word of God is by doing a fruits test between the different Words that are out there and pick the one that we believe to be the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness.

Bible Highlighter said:

No. These are not opinions, but they are facts that you can see for yourself. Commands have actually been changed. Doctrines have actually been changed. Even if they were not changed per say, by way of comparison we can see that the King James Bible is superior in doctrine and it’s commands (for instruction in righteousness) when one compares it to the Modern Translations. Then there is the devil’s name placed in Modern Translations where they don’t belong, either. There are so many red flags that it would make one think they were in a Russian airport. But of course, people see what they want to see for their own reasons.

Click to expand...

Your reasoning is absolutely the same as the reasoning of the catholic church for their Latin Vulgate against protestant translations to native languages.

No care what is a correct reading or what is supported by the Greek evidence. Only tradition, "nothing can be changed"! extreme conservatism. KJVO is very similar to the RCC some centuries ago. The same false arguments. The same fear of correction and of change. The fear of learning more, of reformation and of development.

Bible Highlighter said:

If you were to read all of my words, you would know that I am not in favor of Modern Translations because they attack the Trinity, water down verses on the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, holy living, etc., etc.

Click to expand...

According to your opinion. Others like me don't see it that way and can see exactly what the verse is saying.

Bible Highlighter said:

And like I said…. This should not be an issue if you define difficult words with older dictionaries (like the Websters) and or you look at Modern Translation, etc.

Click to expand...

That is just as distracting as reading the KJV is.

Bible Highlighter said:

But what if you are wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm not. As I said, God lead me to the NRSV. If God thought the KJV was the only authority, He would have lead me that way. He didn't.

Bible Highlighter said:

You would be speaking against God’s very words in claiming they are bad when in reality they are good. That’s a very dangerous position to be in - IMHO.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the final authority?

Bible Highlighter said:

Now, I can say Modern Translations are tainted by way of comparison to the King James Bible because it’s simply a fact if one were to do the study.

Click to expand...

That is still a false equivalency. And you have based your opinion on that false equivalency.

Bible Highlighter said:

Most just want to bury their head in the sand

Click to expand...

I could say the same for you.

Bible Highlighter said:

blindly follow what their church says or what some scholar says.

Click to expand...

Certainly not my church. I also haven't followed what some scholar says.

myst33 said:

What old Greek manuscript has the KJV reading of 1J 5:7? None.

So its not a dogmatic question "which reading is more comfortable for the doctrine", but its a textual question "was the reading originally there?"

Modern translations do not have the KJV reading of the verse because this reading cannot be found in manuscripts. Thats all. It was added by the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages from the Latin Vulgate.

And even though the addition sounds nice, its simply not original and therefore should not be used as an evidence in a theological debate, anyway. Nobody cares you have it in your medieval Bible print, the verse is not in manuscripts and therefore is not authoritative.

Click to expand...

I already answered this within this thread. 1 John 5:7 can be traced back through history, and it was definitely added by the Catholic Church. Actually the Critical Text originates and has ties to the Catholic Church. If you know anything about history, it was the Catholics who tried to destroy the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.

The Introduction to the Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006) explicitly confirms this close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, an following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships." (p. 45)

You can actually see Kurt Land visiting the pope John Paul II here in 1984:




Picture source:
Kurt Aland - Wikipedia

Bible Highlighter said:

You can keep hitting the disagree button, but unless you actually demonstrate your case with showing the actual words in Scripture, you got nothing. For it’s not an opinion that there is only one verse in the Bible that teaches the Trinity directly. It’s simply a fact.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.
The most important thing is that it is taught in the Bible.
And it is; that is a fact.
As I said, I, and many others believe in the Trinity. And I, for one, don't read the KJV. I learned about the Trinity without it - that is a fact.

Bible Highlighter said:

Again, other verses may imply the Trinity indirectly, but there is a difference between verses implying the Trinity vs. an actual verse directly teaching the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Again, I believe in the Trinity, and I don't read the KJV; nor did I learn about it through the KJV.

Bible Highlighter said:

But most people are not going to read the verses (without you quoting the actual words).

Click to expand...

That's why I wrote the references in full - so that they would come up on the screen and people don't have to look them.

Bible Highlighter said:

Again, I challenge you to quote the actual words and highlight them that proves your case. Just throwing a bunch of verse numbers at me does not prove anything.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read my comment?
When a Bible reference is written in full, not abbreviated, it appears in light blue, and you can place your cursor over the verse and it appears on the screen. Alternatively you could take the trouble to look it up in your own Bible.
I'm not going to spend hours writing references out in full, because you don't want to do either of those things. If the references disagree with what you are saying, you'll find another way of interpreting them anyway.

Bible Highlighter said:

Do you believe there is a perfect Word of God in existence today?
Yes, or no?

Click to expand...

THE perfect Word of God is Jesus.
God's word is perfect - the Gospel, which is the same in all Bibles, is perfect.

Bible Highlighter said:

I don’t believe that understanding the KJB vs. Modern Translation topic correctly is a salvation issue,

Click to expand...

Well there you are then - we can be saved without the KJV, so reading/using it is just a matter of choice.

Bible Highlighter said:

I already answered this within this thread. 1 John 5:7 can be traced back through history

Click to expand...

But not the KJV reading of the verse. Thats the point.

The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.

The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century.[4] The comma is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It appears in some English translations of the Bible via its inclusion in the first printed edition of the New Testament, Novum Instrumentum omne by Erasmus, where it first appeared in the 1522 third edition. In spite of its late date, some members of the King James Only movement have argued for its authenticity.[4]


Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

Bible Highlighter said:

Actually the Critical Text originates and has ties to the Catholic Church....Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments...close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican...Kurt Land visiting the pope John Paul II...

Click to expand...

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest and dedicated Textus Receptus to the Pope. He put the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 to the text on the basis of a fabricated manuscript.
He did not have any Greek manuscript for the end of Revelation, so he translated it to Greek from Latin and created readings non-existent in any Greek manuscript.

The committee of the Nestlé-Aland is the most protestant committee of Greek text in history. Much more protestant-ish than the Textus Receptus author and much more reformed than the Textus Receptus text.

On the other hand, not sure why are you against the RCC, they are trinitarians so its them who wanted the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 and forced Erasmus to add it to his text.
The RCC is on your side.

robycop3 said:

They're as perfect as God caused them to be. If YOU have a perfect version, which one is it? (It can't be the KJV, as it has proven goofs & booboos.)

Click to expand...

People can see mistakes where none exists. Imagine if you are wrong and the King James was perfect or it was closest to the pure Word of God that we can have today, and you attacked it wrongfully. I would not want to be in your shoes when I face the Lord (if such were the case). But my point here is that if there is no perfect Word of God, then what makes you trust some words in your Bible over other words? See, if God cannot preserve His Word perfectly, that means that my faith cannot be perfect because faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For me: If there was no perfect Word in existence that I can hold in my hands, then I would most likely not be a believer today because I cannot be the arbiter of truth deciding what belongs and what does not belong in my Bible. I am not God to be able to determine such things. For God is the ultimate author of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

You said:

So how do YOU choose? Guesswork?
Seems we almost all trust translators. KJVOs do.
That's why I use a range of versions, to read God's word from various translators' viewpoints. God has given different nuggets of wisdom to each one, & it's profitable to have as many "nuggets" as possible.

Click to expand...

I originally chosen the KJB by comparing the Modern Translations vs. the KJB.
I found it to be more pure in doctrine, and in instruction in righteousness.
The devil’s name is placed in Modern Translations.
There are many problems even with the origins of Modern Translations, as well.
So this was not really a hard one to figure out.
Now, does this mean I cannot use Modern Translations?
No. It just means that they are not my final Word of authority.
For there can only be one Word of God and not many.
For if you were to have a bible study and have everyone bring a different translation and read a passage together…. What are you going to hear? Confusion.
However, the Scriptures say that God is not the author of confusion.
So God cannot be the author of all the translations that are out there.
There can be only one pure Word of God.

You said:

And remember, the AV makers wrote in their preface that even the "meanest"(poorest) versions are the word of God. They also wrote that VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. (If more KJVOs read the AV's preface closely, there'd be fewer KJVOs!)

Click to expand...

God even had Saul’s men prophesy. It does not mean they were of God. So God can use men despite their own thoughts or ways.

Strong in Him said:

Nope.
All Bibles proclaim the same, Triune, God; same Saviour, same Spirit, same Gospel, same need to be born again. They all have the same teaching that if we are in Christ we are new creations, 2 Corinthians 5:17, have every spiritual blessing, Ephesians 1:3, are God's children, Romans 8:16, John 1:12, are guaranteed an inheritance, through the Holy Spirit, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:14, cannot be separated from God's love, Romans 8:38-39, cannot be snatched out of God's hands, John 10:29. They teach that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts, 1 Corinthians 12, bears fruit in us, Galatians 5:21-22 and intercedes to God for us, Romans 8:27. They teach that Jesus was both God and man, was born, died for us, raised again, ascended, sent his Spirit to his church, has called his church to serve him and preach the Gospel, and will return again one day.

Anything can affect a Christian's growth in the Lord; not reading, or studying, the Bible enough, for example - taking verses out of context, building a doctrine on only one verse, for example. Even arguing endlessly over words, or interpretations, could affect a Christian's growth in the Lord. But reading the NIV rather than the KJV in study and devotions? No.

Click to expand...

The Trinity is true.
But only 1 John 5:7 teaches it directly.

You posted…

Ephesians 1:3 that says,
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ”

However, there is nothing here about how God is one God and yet He is three persons.

Also, I looked at the verses you provided and they do not actually mention how God is a Trinity. Yes, God is a Trinity, but that truth is only directly taught in 1 John 5:7.
So you did not actually provide any verses that teach the same thing as 1 John 5:7.

robycop3 said:

No, the KJV is NOT perfect. It is NOT inerrant.
Error: "Easter" n Acts 12:4

Click to expand...

We've already been over this... no point in going on. Fact is Easter is the fulfillment of Passover and you just don't like the word Easter I guess.

robycop3 said:

Error: "The love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10

Click to expand...

You and the false bibles act like the root is the ORIGIN of something. The root doesn't originate anything, the root feeds and keeps the plant standing. The love of money is the nourishment and support of all evil.

robycop3 said:

Error: The words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. No known ancient manuscript of Revelation has those words in that verse.
There are plenty more goofs & booboos in the KJV, but no KJVO can get past any of these in my very-short list. Thus, the notion that the KJV is perfect & inerrant goes "POOF!"

Click to expand...

"and shalt be" is what kind of problem? What new doctrine got introduced there? There are hundreds of places if not thousands of places where the KJV doesn't match the Greek or Hebrew and each one of those gives greater clarity than the "originals".
I don't understand your side, it's as if you think God can't speak outside of the "originals" and he can't deviate it from them one iota.

myst33 said:

But not the KJV reading of the verse. Thats the point.

The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.

The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century.[4] The comma is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It appears in some English translations of the Bible via its inclusion in the first printed edition of the New Testament, Novum Instrumentum omne by Erasmus, where it first appeared in the 1522 third edition. In spite of its late date, some members of the King James Only movement have argued for its authenticity.[4]


Johannine Comma - Wikipedia


Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest and dedicated Textus Receptus to the Pope. He put the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 to the text on the basis of a fabricated manuscript.
He did not have any Greek manuscript for the end of Revelation, so he translated it to Greek from Latin and created readings non-existent in any Greek manuscript.

The committee of the Nestlé-Aland is the most protestant committee of Greek text in history. Much more protestant-ish than the Textus Receptus author and much more reformed than the Textus Receptus text.

On the other hand, not sure why are you against the RCC, they are trinitarians so its them who wanted the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 and forced Erasmus to add it to his text.
The RCC is on your side.

Click to expand...

I am for Sola Scriptura strongly.



This is one thing that the Catholics are against (as I am sure you are aware of).
Erasmus worked on a translation that went against what the Catholic Church wanted him to do.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/69–1536), the most famous and important of the Northern or Christian humanists, used his vast learning and his satiric pen to question the practices of the church. Because of his philosophy of Christ, which stressed a focus on the Bible and rejected much medieval superstition, Erasmus, a lifelong Catholic, was accused of laying the egg that hatched Luther.

Source:
Protestantism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Erasmus's teaching rejected the material means to salvation so often peddled to the laity, emphasizing that such things distracted from discovering Jesus. Like Luther, he was particularly scornful of popular Catholic attitudes (and the clergy's exploitation of those attitudes) toward saints, writing in 1503,

But the King James Bible was not a sole work of Erasmus. 47 translators worked on the King James Bible, and it was against heavy opposition by the Catholic Church. The Critical Text is based on two manuscripts of which Westcott and Hort used in the heading up of their translating team. One manuscript was found in an Orthodox monastery, and the other was found in a Catholic vault. Hort was into Catholicism, and Kurt Aland (Who later created another Greek New Testament - which uses Westcott and Hort’s work) was also into Catholicism.

Kurt Aland denied the authenticity of the canon of certain books in the New Testament.

KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

Bible Highlighter said:

I am for Sola Scriptura strongly.

This is one thing that the Catholics are against (as I am sure you are aware of).
Erasmus worked on a translation that went against what the Catholic Church wanted him to do.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/69–1536), the most famous and important of the Northern or Christian humanists, used his vast learning and his satiric pen to question the practices of the church. Because of his philosophy of Christ, which stressed a focus on the Bible and rejected much medieval superstition, Erasmus, a lifelong Catholic, was accused of laying the egg that hatched Luther.

Source:
Protestantism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Erasmus's teaching rejected the material means to salvation so often peddled to the laity, emphasizing that such things distracted from discovering Jesus. Like Luther, he was particularly scornful of popular Catholic attitudes (and the clergy's exploitation of those attitudes) toward saints, writing in 1503,

But the King James Bible was not a sole work of Erasmus. 47 translators worked on the King James Bible, and it was against heavy opposition by the Catholic Church. The Critical Text is based on two manuscripts of which Westcott and Hort used in the heading up of their translating team. One manuscript was found in an Orthodox monastery, and the other was found in a Catholic vault. Hort was into Catholicism, and Kurt Aland (Who later created another Greek New Testament - which uses Westcott and Hort’s work) was also into Catholicism.

Kurt Aland denied the authenticity of the canon of certain books in the New Testament.

KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

Click to expand...

Long story short, if you want to attack the work of Nestle Aland just because they have some relations to catholics and because there are some catholics in the committee, you shoot yourself to your own leg, having your Bible based upon a text by the Roman Catholic priest, dedicated to Pope, forced by the English king and with verses non-existent in Greek.

Whatever you want to compare, you will always lose. Greek text based upon 6,000 manuscripts will always be superior and more authoritative than the KJV based on several late ones and with portions from Latin.