of course they would match the septuagint, because it's greek. Greek will always match greek better. But the septuigint is not the text most people view as a source for the Bible. It is more considered a lexical aide.
Greek orthodox church may use a Greek old testament, not russian, romanian, etc. The orthodox church is all over europe. I don't see them using a text they don't understand. Much of Europe does not speak greek. But you could be right. I don't know but I would assume they would use their own language. Russian bible for Russian orthodox and romanian bible for romanian orthodox. Not greek. But the LXX is a valuable tool for many scholars and pastors world wide. But I still don't see it as being a primary source document of the Hebrew old testament. The LXX is a translation actually. Not an original text.The LXX is the official OT for the Orthodox Church, which is the second largest Christian body in the world.
So you are saying that the current KJVOnly believers "claims that Psalm 12:6-7 are "proof" verses that the KJVO myth is in Scripture"; but the the previous KJVOnly believers did not. Interestingly, the KJVOnly believers of old used Psalms 12:6,7 as a proof text of presentation. You have yet to show me a difference between the former, and the later.To answer your question - The current position claims that Psalm 12:6-7 are "proof" verses that the KJVO myth is in Scripture. Now, I know Dr. Wilkinson didn't invent that idea, but he put it into his book, & almost all subsequent KJVO writings have copied it. Plus, the current KJVO myth attacks almost every newer English Bible version, usually without merit. The only gripe KJVOs have with the NKJV is "It aint the KJV".
The TRUTH is, there's absolutely NO Scriptural support whatsoever for KJVO, & that's why it's a myth. NO doctrine of faith/worship that's not found in Scripture, either directly, or by clear implication, is true. Thus, KJVO is false, and without any authrrity from GOD to be either believed or taught.
Let me try this a different way.but you still have a problem of the slip of the pen. If God inspired all the copies, than God made a mistake. Simply put. He would not cause such things as a slip of the pen, or spelling or grammatical mistakes. No, God inspired every jot and tittle of the original only. While stepping back and indirectly guiding and preserving the text throughout all generations (He did not directly inspire all the copies). Because God does not do mistakes. In conclusion if it is ok for God to create scribal errors, then how are we to know the original does not have scribal errors? There is nothing about this theory that works in my mind, logically.
We don't knopw for sure what language Jesus used most of the time when saying things He caused to become Scripture. I don't believe He used Latin all that much, as Latin wasn't used that much even by Romans not near the city of Rome. He used Hebrew at times, I'm sure, but Greek & Aramaic were commonly used by the Jews in the Jerusalem area.of course they would match the septuagint, because it's greek. Greek will always match greek better. But the septuigint is not the text most people view as a source for the Bible. It is more considered a lexical aide.
So you are saying that the current KJVOnly believers "claims that Psalm 12:6-7 are "proof" verses that the KJVO myth is in Scripture"; but the the previous KJVOnly believers did not. Interestingly, the KJVOnly believers of old used Psalms 12:6,7 as a proof text of presentation. You have yet to show me a difference between the former, and the later.
Okay, since the newer English Bible translations didn't exist in former days, that makes your point moot.The latter often features attacks against newer English Bible translations, which, of course, didn't exist in former days.
But one thing they have in common - THEY'RE ALL FALSE.
Well, the old KJVOs were wrong, the current KJVOs are wrong, and if you're KJVO, YOU are wrong.Okay, since the newer English Bible translations didn't exist in former days, that makes your point moot.
What remains then is the fact that you haven't addressed what doctrine the "former" KJVOnlyists held that you are using to differentiate them from the "CURRENT KJVONLY"[ists].
I know what position they had, and I know what position I have, and there is no difference.
So you write an "article" saying the "CURRENT" KJVOonly position is wrong, (which I addressed as meaning the 'entire' KJVOnly position). Then, after I addressed it as the entire position (former and current as one position), you then emphasized the word "CURRENT". Then when I SPECIFICALLY ask you to give me a doctrinal position that differentiates the former from the current position; your answer is, "Well, the old KJVOs were wrong, the current KJVOs are wrong, and if you're KJVO, YOU are wrong"! Really? So your argument is that because an SDA pointed out some facts that conflict with your position, the entire KJVOnly position is wrong. I have learned over the years that many religions (within what are usually called "Christians"), there are denominations that have some good, and some not so good beliefs. I am not a Catholic, and do not subscribe to many of their beliefs, yet, I agree with them on some beliefs, (as I am sure you do). The question is, can we separate fact from fiction on the 'particular issue' of MSS evidence, and the doctrinal teachings of Scripture in relation to the Scriptures, without showing unwarranted bias against any denominations which we agree on some doctrines, but disagree on others? If we can show that a particular denomination has held a practice that directly affects our topic, then we have a warrented reason to present that evidence. If, on the other hand, a denomination (such as the SDA holding the position of only Sabbath Day worship only), which has no bearing on the topic of MSS evidence, it is unwarranted to use an unrelated subject to undermine the SDA on the current topic. Hence, your entire argument against the KJVOnly position was nothing more than a case of 'poisoning the well' (using the SDA position of Sabbath only worship), to then claim they must therefore be incorrect about every other issue, including the current topic, the KJVOnly position. Meaning, you really have no argument at all other than, "Well, the old KJVOs were wrong, the current KJVOs are wrong, and if you're KJVO, YOU are wrong".Well, the old KJVOs were wrong, the current KJVOs are wrong, and if you're KJVO, YOU are wrong.
The old KJVOs generally believed the KJV was better than any previous versions, and they had no newer versions to diss. And the KJVO movement had few followers til those first 3 boox came out, with the last two being hawked on modern media. (Once the squabble within the SDA cult was settled, Dr. Wilkinson lost interest in his book.)
View attachment 252992
Jesus is the morning star, so modern translations are wrong here. Jesus and satan are not brothers like mormonism says. One is not as powerful as the other. While the hebrew allows the word to be translated morning star, it should have never been translated that way because Jesus in three other places confirms He is the morning star. This and many other occasions shows that the KJV is a superior translation than the other modern translations.
1) The first problem is that you don't understand what "inspiration" is.Actually, I have a very legitimate argument. First, the KJVO myth has absolutely NO Scriptural support, a fact which automatically makes it false. Next, there are several other English Bible translations which are just-as-valid as the KJV is. Next, the KJV is not perfect. It has goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
I'll give you credit for at least TRYING to make a case for the legitimacy of the KJVO myth, but you're still trying to plow the river. You simply cannot make true from false.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; EphesiansIn Rev. 2:28, Jesus said, "and I will give him the morning star". So, THAT MS is neither Jesus nor Satan. So much for your "better translation" theory.
Spoiler alert!!!Made this post in another thread. Don't like issuing reruns
Let me try this a different way.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1
Let's say (for illustrative purposes) that what you are looking at above is the "original autograph".
And, the following, is a copy of that autograph ...
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1
God breathed the words of John 1:1 to John, those are the "inspired" God breathed" words.
Now here is my question for you: Are the words that God spoke inspired, or, is the paper and ink of the original manuscript inspired? That is a very important question.
if you are giving a morning star to satan, he therefore would not be the morning star. Secondly, this happens in revelation the last book of the Bible. Our passage in question is thousands of years before hand. Satan had not yet been given the morning star. So why did NIV translators call satan the morning star (before he was given that authority)?In Rev. 2:28, Jesus said, "and I will give him the morning star". So, THAT MS is neither Jesus nor Satan. So much for your "better translation" theory.
The bright and morning star is title for Jesus. Rarely does Jesus use all of His titles in every situation.5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Ephesians
Why can't Jesus simply be saying that He will give them "Himself", the bright and morning star?
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?