Funny thing is, the Mormons are really big on using.....(wait for it)…..the King James!I think all of the major translations are good, barring stuff like the books used by the JW or Mormons. All of them point to Jesus' divinity, and include his teachings.
I see NO KJVO responses here to the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support, thereby making it false. The MAN-MADE origin of the current KJVO myth is very-evident.
nothing wrong with being KJV-PREFERRED, but telling someone that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there is SPREADING A LIE!
I have an issue with regard to their 20th Century NT Translation of Luke 4:18.
Unfortunately, due to English not differentiating between singular and plural “you,” that has to suffice to keep it from referring to within an individual. It is within the group. “Among” is the best way to do that.
The Kingdom is NEVER an individual thing.
Interestingly enough, there's a parallel movement amongst Trad Catholics that is Douay Rheims or (more extreme) Vulgate Only ('cuz Stone Cold Trent sez so). You see the same bad arguments being made, to the point where you have to wonder "Who's borrowing from whom?"
it is correct that the king james is not the inspired word of God, only the original manuscripts are. Not even the copies. That is why it's important to be accurate in scribal copying. But what worries me about modern translations, is a forgery issue, that is not prevailant in the majority text (that the KJV comes from), here let me explain: sinaiticus is 1/3rd of the every modern translation. also I found this online while researching, in a scholarly forum and no one seemed to address this guys post:
The question of Sinaiticus authenticity toward a wild turn after the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.
This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.
Steven Avery
and another poster confirmed this with this post:
I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.
accept scofield uses the majority manuscripts, 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:It's a pretty intriguing story, part comedy and part tragedy, where German Rationalists, Orthodox monks, and Scofield Adherents all play a role.
accept scofield uses the majority manuscripts, 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?
What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.
I'm talking about the writer giving that speech. He seems to be a Scofield adherent. I just find it funny that this issue has brought in a whole cast of characters from the church. It's all converging on this spot.
I don't think Simonides was a culprit at all (like he points out - Simonides was on record going against Tischendorf). I'm Orthodox myself - you'll find that most Orthodox churches in English prefer the KJV as well, and rely on a Byzantine text in Greek churches (the Patriarchal text put together in 1904 or so, but is basically similar to a Textus Receptus, with a handful of differences), while the Russian Synodal translation is a TR bible too.
there are six responses given by white, three of them have already been addressed, I will try to reply to the other three in a little bit. I think pinto was simply caught off guard as white is a good debater. That does not make his points correct. But thanks for pointing it out, in fact here are the bullet points from the same website: Simonides | Alpha and Omega Ministries. Also in conclusion I could say that the sinaiticus found by tischendorf was a conspiracy theory as well. But ad hominem attack does not suite this forum very well, and is not very Biblical. so please don't call things conspiracy theories that have not been proven so. I try to respect other people, and ask that they be civil in return.Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have long ago been debunked:
In Response to Chris Pinto | Alpha and Omega Ministries
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?