The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[robycop3]

Matthew 6:7 we find υποκριται (hypocrites) in Βג syrcur; with εθνικοι (gentiles) in Aleph ...

Which is correct?

This is Not a case of differently arranged words, this is a case of two MSS having two completely different words. Which is correct?

I dunno, and neither do you, as neither of us were there when it was originally written.

And still, NO DEALING WITH THE KJVO MYTH'S LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT ! ! No KJVO dares do it, as that's the torpedo that sinks the KJVO ship for good!

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Jack, to be polite, I'll play your mss. game one time...Where are the authentic Greek mss. readings for the KJV's Rev. 16:5 & 22:19?

 

[Concord1968]

Dr. Jack, to be polite, I'll play your mss. game one time...Where are the authentic Greek mss. readings for the KJV's Rev. 16:5 & 22:19?

Aren't those the one's Erasmus had to copy out of the Latin Vulgate because he didn't have any manuscripts that contained them?

 

[robycop3]

Aren't those the one's Erasmus had to copy out of the Latin Vulgate because he didn't have any manuscripts that contained them?

Yes especially the last 6 verses of Rev.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Dr. Jack, to be polite, I'll play your mss. game one time...Where are the authentic Greek mss. readings for the KJV's Rev. 16:5 & 22:19?

Ah, yes, the false assertion that if there are no extant mss to support a particular text of Scripture, then there never has been any supporting mss.

You may not be aware, but the shoes I wore in sixth grade no longer exist. Yet, I distinctly remember them because they had a type of sole that held lots of mud. My mom and dad made sure that I knew it was my responsibility to clean them prior to entering the house.

If one researches the history of the Bible, one will notice that many of the people that handled various known MSS, mention mss that are no longer extant. So were those men making up stories of having known of other MSS, or, did they actually have knowledge of them?

Who are we to say that just because we currently know of no extant MSS pertaining to a particular text, that there were never any such mss?

Yet, that is exactly the argument being asserted here. My answer is simple ... I know of none, but, we can neither prove in the affirmative, or negative that there were no MSS to support the text in question.

 

[robycop3]

Ah, yes, the false assertion that if there are no extant mss to support a particular text of Scripture, then there never has been any supporting mss.

You may not be aware, but the shoes I wore in sixth grade no longer exist. Yet, I distinctly remember them because they had a type of sole that held lots of mud. My mom and dad made sure that I knew it was my responsibility to clean them prior to entering the house.

If one researches the history of the Bible, one will notice that many of the people that handled various known MSS, mention mss that are no longer extant. So were those men making up stories of having known of other MSS, or, did they actually have knowledge of them?

Who are we to say that just because we currently know of no extant MSS pertaining to a particular text, that there were never any such mss?

Yet, that is exactly the argument being asserted here. My answer is simple ... I know of none, but, we can neither prove in the affirmative, or negative that there were no MSS to support the text in question.

So, you don't believe God preserved ALL His word to this day?????????????

And still, YOU HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE FACT OF NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ! ! This fact is not gonna go away ! !

 

[Dr. Jack]

So, you don't believe God preserved ALL His word to this day?????????????

And still, YOU HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE FACT OF NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ! ! This fact is not gonna go away ! !

Before I address you false assertion concerning the preface of the KJ 1611, please address this question.

What Scriptural support do you have for you being saved?

 

[Dr. Jack]

So, you don't believe God preserved ALL His word to this day?????????????

And still, YOU HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE FACT OF NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ! ! This fact is not gonna go away ! !

By the way, I am in no way insinuating you are NOT saved; I am simply asking you for a Scriptural reference that you are.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast & red.
I have a car. It's red & fast.
My car is fast and red.
Etc, etc.
Same message, different words. WHICH IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, AND WHY? And, BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you say the KJV is the only "official" English Bible translation, since the KJV ITSELF says no such thing? (The AV 1611's preface, "To The Reader", conveniently left outta most current KJV editions, shows that not even the KJV's makers were KJVO!)
If MAN can do it, why can't GOD do it?
With all due respect...
Again...STILL NOT ADDRESSING the fact of NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth! Man's opinions & guesswork are no substitute for SCRIPTURE!

As per the Preface of the 1611 KJ, and the comments "To the Reader"

Those opponents of the KJVOnly position like to present the following from the Preface of the 1611 KJV

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

The purpose of this excerpt is to assert that the translators of the KJ said that every Bible of the past (at that time) was the word of God, but never asserted that their work was to produce the one perfect Bible.

They did say that all previous Bibles were the word of God, but they did not say that their purpose was not to translate a one that was any better than the rest.

Here is what they said as to their purpose ...

"But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke."

Notice:

1) "Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation"

They did not set out to make a "new Translation".

2) "nor yet to make of a bad one a good one"

It was not there purpose to make a bad one better.

3) "(for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke

This is a parentheses that defines why the previous two points were not the purpose of the translators. If Sixtus had imputed some of his beliefs as to the truth of Scripture; there would have been (at least in some degree) the necessity of having one, (or both) of the previous purposes.

4) "but to make a good one better"

The translators now state ... "but" a conjunction used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

The contrasting statement is that the previous things were NOT the purpose; BUT these ARE the purpose.

"to make a good one better".

Until that time there had been several good Reformation Bibles. However, the unique thing about Bibles such as the Bishops Bible (produced by the Church of England ... Episcopalian); and the Geneva Bible (produced by Reformers (Calvinists) in Switzerland), is that they were translated in a manner that emphasized their beliefs.

King James ordered them to work together to translate a single Bible to be used for all.

Hence, the purpose of the KJ translators was to "to make a good one better".

5) "or out of many good ones, one principall good one"

The KJ translators then add, an additional possible conclusion ... out of many good ones (the previous Reformation Bibles), "one principal good one".

"PRINCIPAL
most important, consequential, or influential : chief <the principal ingredient> <the region's principal city>"
Merriam Webster 2019

Wow, the most important, or influential ... I'm okay with that!

6) "not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke."

Not "justly" to be excepted against. The KJ translators literally stated that those who would try to have an "exception against" (reason to be against this translation), would have no "just" reason to have their objections to it. Why? Because, there was no single group that monopolized its translation: it was the combined work of Christian's, being led of the Holy Spirit.

 

[robycop3]

Before I address you false assertion concerning the preface of the KJ 1611, please address this question.

What Scriptural support do you have for you being saved?

With all due respect...

My salvation has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And I could ask YOU the same question!

But, as I asked my Q first, I won't answer yours til you either answer mine or admit you can't.

 

[robycop3]

As per the Preface of the 1611 KJ, and the comments "To the Reader"

Those opponents of the KJVOnly position like to present the following from the Preface of the 1611 KJV

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

The purpose of this excerpt is to assert that the translators of the KJ said that every Bible of the past (at that time) was the word of God, but never asserted that their work was to produce the one perfect Bible.

They did say that all previous Bibles were the word of God, but they did not say that their purpose was not to translate a one that was any better than the rest.

Here is what they said as to their purpose ...

"But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke."

Notice:

1) "Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation"

They did not set out to make a "new Translation".

2) "nor yet to make of a bad one a good one"

It was not there purpose to make a bad one better.

3) "(for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke

This is a parentheses that defines why the previous two points were not the purpose of the translators. If Sixtus had imputed some of his beliefs as to the truth of Scripture; there would have been (at least in some degree) the necessity of having one, (or both) of the previous purposes.

4) "but to make a good one better"

The translators now state ... "but" a conjunction used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

The contrasting statement is that the previous things were NOT the purpose; BUT these ARE the purpose.

"to make a good one better".

Until that time there had been several good Reformation Bibles. However, the unique thing about Bibles such as the Bishops Bible (produced by the Church of England ... Episcopalian); and the Geneva Bible (produced by Reformers (Calvinists) in Switzerland), is that they were translated in a manner that emphasized their beliefs.

King James ordered them to work together to translate a single Bible to be used for all.

Hence, the purpose of the KJ translators was to "to make a good one better".

5) "or out of many good ones, one principall good one"

The KJ translators then add, an additional possible conclusion ... out of many good ones (the previous Reformation Bibles), "one principal good one".

"PRINCIPAL
most important, consequential, or influential : chief <the principal ingredient> <the region's principal city>"
Merriam Webster 2019

Wow, the most important, or influential ... I'm okay with that!

6) "not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke."

Not "justly" to be excepted against. The KJ translators literally stated that those who would try to have an "exception against" (reason to be against this translation), would have no "just" reason to have their objections to it. Why? Because, there was no single group that monopolized its translation: it was the combined work of Christian's, being led of the Holy Spirit.

SIR:

First - KJ did NOT order them to do anything - he merely renewed the authorization QE 1 had given them shortly before her death. (Remember, from Henry VIII onward, the British monarch is de-facto head of the Anglican Church, even though the Archbishop of Canterbury generally runs its daily affairs.)

Second - You conveniently leave out this sentence from the AV's preface:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:

KJVOs don't like that intel from the preface one bit!

Third - The AV men had set out to make one version to be used in all Anglican congregations. However, it was too expensive for the average Brit to buy for a number of years.

Fourth - the AV makers made it plain that they were NOT making "the" be-all, end-all English version.

And once again, you have digressed from dealing with the FACT that THE KJVO MYTH HAS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT ! ! That fact is NOT gonna go away! it effectively kills the KJVO myth, even though most KJVOs don't have the courage nor honesty to admit it. YOU, Sir, seem to be in that same gang!

 

[Dr. Jack]

With all due respect...

My salvation has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And I could ask YOU the same question!

But, as I asked my Q first, I won't answer yours til you either answer mine or admit you can't.

Here is the point, just as the Bible doesn't say "KJ", it doesn't say "robycop3" either. If therefore we cannot apply the texts that refer to preservation to specific Bibles, (like the KJ), we also cannot apply the texts that refer to salvation to specific people.

The Scriptures say, "whosoever", yet, there are those who say "whosoever" isn't whosoever. How then can we know who the whosoever is?

The practice of the Old Testament was that there was one, and only one "version" of what God said. Now I know many scholars disagree and think the Septuagint was used by Christ, but I do not agree. I believe The Hebrew text was used in the temple.

What is really up for debate is the meaning of preservation, which is taught in Scripture. You cannot have Bibles with complete verses missing, and say it is the same as those containing those verses. You cannot have Bibles that have different words, (with different meanings) and say it is the same. That is the difference that preservation is about.

God said:

4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation

When we address preservation, these text must be considered. No, the KJ is not "specifically" named in Scripture, but the preservation of God's word is.

No, the names Dr. Jack and robycop3 are not specifically named in Scripture, but we apply the texts relating to salvation to us, just the same, as if they were. Hence, if you can apply the texts relating to salvation to you, (even though you are not specifically named), why can we not apply the words of preservation to the specific Bible that used the best MSS, was translated by the greatest group of men called for such a purpose; and performed their duties without the man-made rules of Textual Criticism, (made by many men whom, in some cases denied the inspiration of all that we call Scripture, also denied the equal authority of the OT, and NT, and denied such basic teachings as the Garden of Eden, and many other historical accounts in the Scriptures)?

 

[Dr. Jack]

SIR:



Second - You conveniently leave out this sentence from the AV's preface:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:

So we must ask, Is finding the "sense" of the Scriptures the same as every "Translation" being authoritative? There must be a single authority.

One of the things that I have observed over the years is that people tend to use the version that fits their situation best. In reading articles I find multiple versions used to emphasize different points. Why? In reviewing those articles I found that if a single version is used, the wording of a single version will not support the point being made. In other words, by using different versions, the author of the article was able to support his position. He became the authority of which Bible was translated properly in each case in order to support his position, rather than accepting one version to be the authority over him.

When any single group translated the Bible, we see this bias. That is why King James ordered all the men to work together as one to translate the Scriptures into English.

 

[robycop3]

Here is the point, just as the Bible doesn't say "KJ", it doesn't say "robycop3" either. If therefore we cannot apply the texts that refer to preservation to specific Bibles, (like the KJ), we also cannot apply the texts that refer to salvation to specific people.

The Scriptures say, "whosoever", yet, there are those who say "whosoever" isn't whosoever. How then can we know who the whosoever is?

The practice of the Old Testament was that there was one, and only one "version" of what God said. Now I know many scholars disagree and think the Septuagint was used by Christ, but I do not agree. I believe The Hebrew text was used in the temple.

What is really up for debate is the meaning of preservation, which is taught in Scripture. You cannot have Bibles with complete verses missing, and say it is the same as those containing those verses. You cannot have Bibles that have different words, (with different meanings) and say it is the same. That is the difference that preservation is about.

God said:

4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation

When we address preservation, these text must be considered. No, the KJ is not "specifically" named in Scripture, but the preservation of God's word is.

No, the names Dr. Jack and robycop3 are not specifically named in Scripture, but we apply the texts relating to salvation to us, just the same, as if they were. Hence, if you can apply the texts relating to salvation to you, (even though you are not specifically named), why can we not apply the words of preservation to the specific Bible that used the best MSS, was translated by the greatest group of men called for such a purpose; and performed their duties without the man-made rules of Textual Criticism, (made by many men whom, in some cases denied the inspiration of all that we call Scripture, also denied the equal authority of the OT, and NT, and denied such basic teachings as the Garden of Eden, and many other historical accounts in the Scriptures)?

Sir, I must give you credit for trying hard to defend the indefensible, as the KJVO myth is, but you still are coming up short, & as long as you keep trying to justify a non-Scriptural doctrine of faith/worship, you're always gonna miss the mark.

Our "take" on the Scriptural mss. is guesswork at best. We don't know who made most of them, where or when, nor what their sources were. But God has so far allowed us to have discovered some 5K mss. or parts of mss. Now, can we rule out that God has preserved every one for our consideration? BY WHAT AUTHORITY would we do so?

Most newer Bible translations are made from an eclectic mix of mss. with very few being completely ignored. The AV men only had some 20 mss. to work from. AND DON'T FORGET, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS HAS BEEN REVISED OVER 30 TIMES, WITH BEZA'S REVISION USED BY THE AV MEN BEING IN THE HIGH 20S IN REVISION NUMBERS!
One version???????????????????????????????????????????????

Ya think those gents were superior to today's scholars? They "cured" migraines by trepanning, that is, cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "bad humours" to escape.

And, ya believe they were paragons of virtue? Translator Richard Thompson was a drunk. Many of the others, including the esteemed Launcelot Andrewes, were members of the sinister Star Chamber, & the more-sinister "Court of High Commission", which were the Anglican Inquisitions. They could condemn almost anyone to almost any punishment, including death, outside the British due process of law. Both KJ & several church officials got rid of opponents thru those venues.

Now, you mentioned that the AV men's aim was to make an existing version better. Why can't we apply the same principles to the NKJV, which uses the same mss. the AV used?

Now, I have a repro AV 1611, the Hendrickson edition, which is identical to the original except it uses Roman font rather than Gothic, & is physically smaller. But it retains every word & spelling from the original. And, when comparing it with the 1769 Blayney's Edition KJV, the most-used KJV edition today, we see a vast number of spelling and wording changes. However, Blayney's still retains most of the now-archaic Elizabethan English of the original.

So please, don't try to tell me the currently-used KJV editions have not been changed a good bit from the AV 1611!

But, basically, you're still not dealing with the fact of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO! You're now trying to assert the KJV is the best English Bible translation out there, when it's not even in OUR language style!

Now, I believe GOD can tell us anything He wants us to know, by any means He chooses, so if believing the KJVO myth was His will, He would've let us know in unmistakable manner. And there's simply NOTHING FROM GOD supporting KJVO!

 

[robycop3]

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:

So we must ask, Is finding the "sense" of the Scriptures the same as every "Translation" being authoritative? There must be a single authority.

And that single authority is the Scriptural manuscripts.

One of the things that I have observed over the years is that people tend to use the version that fits their situation best. In reading articles I find multiple versions used to emphasize different points. Why? In reviewing those articles I found that if a single version is used, the wording of a single version will not support the point being made. In other words, by using different versions, the author of the article was able to support his position. He became the authority of which Bible was translated properly in each case in order to support his position, rather than accepting one version to be the authority over him.

Something I've said repeatedly is that all Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. Just as the AV men made goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, some translators or groups of them did better work in some parts of Scripture than they did in others. For instance, the best of the AV mens' work was in the 23rd Psalm, while some of their worst was in 2 Cor. 6.

When any single group translated the Bible, we see this bias. That is why King James ordered all the men to work together as one to translate the Scriptures into English.

Again, KJ didn't order them to do anything! They worked for 8 years, without pay, when they could! All KJ did was give them the OK to make a new Bible translation.

Archbishop Richard Bancroft, their boss, made 14 rules for them to follow, having those rules approved by KJ, who hardly even looked at them. When Banny died in 1610, KJ urged them to finish their work, which they soon did. That was the limit of KJ's participation in the process.

The first, and ONLY "authorized" English Bible was the "Great Bible", named for its physical size, 12" by 14", which Henry VIII COMMANDED to be made.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Sir, I must give you credit for trying hard to defend the indefensible, as the KJVO myth is, but you still are coming up short, & as long as you keep trying to justify a non-Scriptural doctrine of faith/worship, you're always gonna miss the mark.

I wasn't aware I was "trying hard to defend the indefensible"; I simply address the information (or misinformation) presented to me.

Our "take" on the Scriptural mss. is guesswork at best. We don't know who made most of them, where or when, nor what their sources were.

Oh how I see the teachings of German Rationalism shining through in your statements. According to the 1689 London Baptist Confession the writers believed the following:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

It doesn't appear that the writers of that Confession ""take" on the Scriptural mss. is [was] guesswork at best".

But God has so far allowed us to have discovered some 5K mss. or parts of mss. Now, can we rule out that God has preserved every one for our consideration? BY WHAT AUTHORITY would we do so?

Most newer Bible translations are made from an eclectic mix of mss. with very few being completely ignored.

I noticed you said, "with very few being completely ignored". We both know that modern translations are based primarily on B and Aleph.

The AV men only had some 20 mss. to work from. AND DON'T FORGET, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS HAS BEEN REVISED OVER 30 TIMES, WITH BEZA'S REVISION USED BY THE AV MEN BEING IN THE HIGH 20S IN REVISION NUMBERS!

Now you really are about to make me laugh. Seriously, Have you ever actually seen any statistics that show the level of agreement among the readings of the Byzantine texts?

The agreement rate among the Byzantine texts are between 85% and 100%. While the two principal mss of the critical text, (B and Aleph) disagree more than they agree.

One version???????????????????????????????????????????????

Ya think those gents were superior to today's scholars? They "cured" migraines by trepanning, that is, cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "bad humours" to escape.

I thought we were discussing spiritual matters.

And, ya believe they were paragons of virtue? Translator Richard Thompson was a drunk. Many of the others, including the esteemed Launcelot Andrewes, were members of the sinister Star Chamber, & the more-sinister "Court of High Commission", which were the Anglican Inquisitions. They could condemn almost anyone to almost any punishment, including death, outside the British due process of law. Both KJ & several church officials got rid of opponents thru those venues.

Can you please supply credible sources for those accusations?

Now, you mentioned that the AV men's aim was to make an existing version better. Why can't we apply the same principles to the NKJV, which uses the same mss. the AV used?

Because they're still using Dynamic Equivalence rather than Formal Equivalence.

Now, I have a repro AV 1611, the Hendrickson edition, which is identical to the original except it uses Roman font rather than Gothic, & is physically smaller. But it retains every word & spelling from the original. And, when comparing it with the 1769 Blayney's Edition KJV, the most-used KJV edition today, we see a vast number of spelling and wording changes. However, Blayney's still retains most of the now-archaic Elizabethan English of the original.

So you're going to say that "spelling" changes (such as "sinne" to "sin" ... since the standardization of spelling was not yet reached), is the same as the deletion of texts, or changing the words completely ... Reallt??

So please, don't try to tell me the currently-used KJV editions have not been changed a good bit from the AV 1611!

There are a out 400 textual changes from 1611 to 1769.

But, basically, you're still not dealing with the fact of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO!

No, I'm dealing with preservation.

You're now trying to assert the KJV is the best English Bible translation out there, when it's not even in OUR language style!

No, I'm asserting it is God's inerrant Word, for English speaking people.

Now, I believe GOD can tell us anything He wants us to know, by any means He chooses, so if believing the KJVO myth was His will, He would've let us know in unmistakable manner. And there's simply NOTHING FROM GOD supporting KJVO!

What there is no Scriptural support of is God preserving His Words, without preserving His words.

 

[robycop3]

I wasn't aware I was "trying hard to defend the indefensible"; I simply address the information (or misinformation) presented to me.


Oh how I see the teachings of German Rationalism shining through in your statements. According to the 1689 London Baptist Confession the writers believed the following:


It doesn't appear that the writers of that Confession ""take" on the Scriptural mss. is [was] guesswork at best".


I noticed you said, "with very few being completely ignored". We both know that modern translations are based primarily on B and Aleph.


Now you really are about to make me laugh. Seriously, Have you ever actually seen any statistics that show the level of agreement among the readings of the Byzantine texts?

The agreement rate among the Byzantine texts are between 85% and 100%. While the two principal mss of the critical text, (B and Aleph) disagree more than they agree.



I thought we were discussing spiritual matters.


Can you please supply credible sources for those accusations?


Because they're still using Dynamic Equivalence rather than Formal Equivalence.


So you're going to say that "spelling" changes (such as "sinne" to "sin" ... since the standardization of spelling was not yet reached), is the same as the deletion of texts, or changing the words completely ... Reallt??


There are a out 400 textual changes from 1611 to 1769.


No, I'm dealing with preservation.


No, I'm asserting it is God's inerrant Word, for English speaking people.



What there is no Scriptural support of is God preserving His Words, without preserving His words.

Boy Oh Boy!
You just don't want to try to deal with the fact that you're trying to defend a false doctrine, made doubly false by the fact that it has no Scriptural support!

You have chosen the KJV as your pet version, and therefore decided it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, a guess that you can't begin to support. And therefore, you've bought into the KJVO myth, which came about from a cultic, dishonest origin, and isn't found even in the KJV itself, either in its text, nor in its footnotes, nor any of the extratextual material its translators placed in its original edition.

And the KJV is NOT INERRANT. I can point out goofs & booboos in it all day. There's the glaring "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4. There's "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13. There's "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Again, I can go on all day. But it only takes ONE booboo to shatter the "inerrant" shell.

Far as Sinaiticus & Vaticanus go, do you not see God's hand in preserving them? The monks of St. Catherine's Monastery were gonna burn S in a fireplace, and the Vatican at the time they received V was burning all mss. & papers they obtained that didn't match THEIR version of the Scriptures, but they PRESERVED V to this day. So, apparently, God wanted us to have them.

But, do we know who wrote either of them, where or when, and what sources they used?

As for differences in the mss...The four Gospels differ greatly among themselves, but no Bible student imagines choosing only one of them as Scripture & rejecting the other three. As a former cop, I know four witnesses will write four different accounts of the same event, even though all those witnesses are of normal intelligence & are being honest as they can. So it was with the Gospels. The same events registered differently in each disciple's mind, same as happens with us. Now, we must take that fact and apply it to the various Scriptural mss. as each was likely written by a different person or persons.

So, we must remember GOD'S INFLUENCE. Just as we "take" all four Gospels together to form a picture of the events they describe, we must do the same with the various Scriptural mss. We simply cannot accept "A" & reject "B" because we like "A" and "B" is a little different from "A". I DON'T QUESTION GOD. I believe HE preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. we now have, as well as what others may be discovered.

So, you're still on Square One about the KJVO myth's being false for lack of Scriptural support, as well as its inherent falsehood in & of its points. You simply CANNOT begin to prove that the NKJV or NASV are not the word of God same as the KJV, Bishop's, or Geneva versions are. it's quite-evident that, in English, God has kept His word in current language style as He's caused/allowed the language to change, from Caedmon in the early days of the language to Wycliffe in 1384, to Tyndale of the 1530s, to Coverdale & associates of the 1560s to the KJV to the NKJV, etc. now.

"THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !"

 

[createdtoworship]

EASY!
First, I believe God has conveyed His word to us in the forms & manners HE has chosen, which happens to include His infallible word being translated by fallible men. I trust God to have given us His word as HE has chosen, & that it's accurate & completely true, even where the wording is different.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red, fast car.
The car I have is fast and red.
Etc.

Same message, worded differently.

Thus, I can pick up & hold a NASV, NKJV, KJV, ESV, etc. despite their human errors & know I have God's inerrant word in my hands, same as if I were able to hold all the Scriptural mss. at once. For instance, the KJV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 does not change the message that Herod arrested Peter, intending to hold him til the Jewish religious leadership was ready to deal with Peter themselves. (However, I prefer to teach God's word in mine & the audience's own language, contemporary English.)

And you still aren't dealing with the FACT that KJVO has no Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. That fact stumps & stymies all KJVOs, so very few of them will respond to that fact at all. Their ignoring it only wrecks their own credibility.

modern manuscripts cut out dozens of verses, that are there in the textus receptus, and that are quoted by the church fathers.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Boy Oh Boy!
You just don't want to try to deal with the fact that you're trying to defend a false doctrine, made doubly false by the fact that it has no Scriptural support!

You have chosen the KJV as your pet version, and therefore decided it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, a guess that you can't begin to support. And therefore, you've bought into the KJVO myth, which came about from a cultic, dishonest origin, and isn't found even in the KJV itself, either in its text, nor in its footnotes, nor any of the extratextual material its translators placed in its original edition.

And the KJV is NOT INERRANT. I can point out goofs & booboos in it all day. There's the glaring "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4. There's "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13. There's "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Again, I can go on all day. But it only takes ONE booboo to shatter the "inerrant" shell.

Far as Sinaiticus & Vaticanus go, do you not see God's hand in preserving them? The monks of St. Catherine's Monastery were gonna burn S in a fireplace, and the Vatican at the time they received V was burning all mss. & papers they obtained that didn't match THEIR version of the Scriptures, but they PRESERVED V to this day. So, apparently, God wanted us to have them.

But, do we know who wrote either of them, where or when, and what sources they used?

As for differences in the mss...The four Gospels differ greatly among themselves, but no Bible student imagines choosing only one of them as Scripture & rejecting the other three. As a former cop, I know four witnesses will write four different accounts of the same event, even though all those witnesses are of normal intelligence & are being honest as they can. So it was with the Gospels. The same events registered differently in each disciple's mind, same as happens with us. Now, we must take that fact and apply it to the various Scriptural mss. as each was likely written by a different person or persons.

So, we must remember GOD'S INFLUENCE. Just as we "take" all four Gospels together to form a picture of the events they describe, we must do the same with the various Scriptural mss. We simply cannot accept "A" & reject "B" because we like "A" and "B" is a little different from "A". I DON'T QUESTION GOD. I believe HE preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. we now have, as well as what others may be discovered.

So, you're still on Square One about the KJVO myth's being false for lack of Scriptural support, as well as its inherent falsehood in & of its points. You simply CANNOT begin to prove that the NKJV or NASV are not the word of God same as the KJV, Bishop's, or Geneva versions are. it's quite-evident that, in English, God has kept His word in current language style as He's caused/allowed the language to change, from Caedmon in the early days of the language to Wycliffe in 1384, to Tyndale of the 1530s, to Coverdale & associates of the 1560s to the KJV to the NKJV, etc. now.

"THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !"

Boy Oh Boy! You just don't want to try to deal with the fact that you're trying to defend a false doctrine, made doubly false by the fact that it has no Scriptural support! You have chosen the KJV as your pet version, and therefore decided it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, a guess that you can't begin to support.

Incorrect, I have chosen the KJ after decades of research into the history of the Christian Bible, the MSS, Textual Criticism, the Reformation, and modern Bibles.

And therefore, you've bought into the KJVO myth, which came about from a cultic, dishonest origin, and isn't found even in the KJV itself, either in its text, nor in its footnotes, nor any of the extratextual material its translators placed in its original edition.

I welcome a discussion on this subject. But of course, you would be required to actually support any and all accusations against the KJ, preferably from an unbiased source. Please, by all means, put forth you best presentation to prove that the KJ “came about from a cultic, dishonest origin”. You've said it; now you need to support it with facts.

And the KJV is NOT INERRANT. I can point out goofs & booboos in it all day. There's the glaring "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4. There's "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13. There's "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Again, I can go on all day. But it only takes ONE booboo to shatter the "inerrant" shell.

No, you have the opinion of modern scholarship that is based upon rules made by men who deny the inspiration of Scripture, as well as the equal authority of the OT and NT. The problem is, you have simply accepted the word of modern scholarship, and have no idea of its roots and origin. The very net you have cast to ensnare me, will be the net that proves you wrong. The real question is, could you honestly pray to God right now and ask Him to allow you to see the facts of history for what they are, and accept the outcome, no matter what? That is what I had to do about 15 years ago. I had dug so deep, that I wondered, (and sometimes feared), what I may find; but my desire to know the truth was greater. Please, present your case.

Far as Sinaiticus & Vaticanus go, do you not see God's hand in preserving them? The monks of St. Catherine's Monastery were gonna burn S in a fireplace, and the Vatican at the time they received V was burning all mss. & papers they obtained that didn't match THEIR version of the Scriptures, but they PRESERVED V to this day. So, apparently, God wanted us to have them.

One need only to study the methodology of the Jews copying their MSS to see the standard of God. Sinaiticus is loaded with corrections upon corrections (as many as 10 generations of editing for the same portions). Such poor quality would never have been accepted by true copycats. The agreement between the Byzantine texts is in line with what we would expect from true scribes.

But, do we know who wrote either of them, where or when, and what sources they used?

Are you talking about the originals, or the copies?

As for differences in the mss...The four Gospels differ greatly among themselves, but no Bible student imagines choosing only one of them as Scripture & rejecting the other three. As a former cop, I know four witnesses will write four different accounts of the same event, even though all those witnesses are of normal intelligence & are being honest as they can. So it was with the Gospels. The same events registered differently in each disciple's mind, same as happens with us. Now, we must take that fact and apply it to the various Scriptural mss. as each was likely written by a different person or persons.

The first thing you must do is stop using the naturalistic view. God had each writer write according to what He wanted the writer to portray Him as. It wasn’t Matthew ‘borrowing” from Mark, each writer wrote the words God wanted them to write. [
QUOTE]So, we must remember GOD'S INFLUENCE. Just as we "take" all four Gospels together to form a picture of the events they describe, we must do the same with the various Scriptural mss. We simply cannot accept "A" & reject "B" because we like "A" and "B" is a little different from "A". I DON'T QUESTION GOD. I believe HE preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. we now have, as well as what others may be discovered.[/QUOTE]
You need to distinguish between the difference in the four gospels BECAUSE they present four portrayals; and the differences in the MSS that support each of the gospels. The MSS that support each individual gospel should be in total agreement. E.g. All MSS of Matthew should be in agreement, but we have already seen that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree on the text of Matthew 6:7 … having υποκριται (hypocrites) – Βג syrcur
and
εθνικοι (gentiles) – Aleph

So, you're still on Square One about the KJVO myth's being false for lack of Scriptural support, as well as its inherent falsehood in & of its points. You simply CANNOT begin to prove that the NKJV or NASV are not the word of God same as the KJV, Bishop's, or Geneva versions are. it's quite-evident that, in English, God has kept His word in current language style as He's caused/allowed the language to change, from Caedmon in the early days of the language to Wycliffe in 1384, to Tyndale of the 1530s, to Coverdale & associates of the 1560s to the KJV to the NKJV, etc. now.

I believe the Reformation Bibles were good translations, but not as good as the KJ

 

[robycop3]

modern manuscripts cut out dozens of verses, that are there in the textus receptus, and that are quoted by the church fathers.

How "modern" are the mss. to which you refer? And remember, the Textus Receptus contains a few passages not found in ANY ancient Scriptural mss.