The KJVO myth...

[Non-profit Prophet]

Only if what you said about the MT is factual and can be supported with credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Do you have any of that?

Study Chazalic literature- it was a common belief that Melchizedek was also Shem. However, this teaching has never been observed in any OT commentaries prior to the writing of the NT which associates Jesus with Melchizedek. The genealogies in all OT mss predating the Masoretic text do not support this in that they show that Shem died more than 600 years before Abraham. (See LXX and DSS- both of which predate Jesus.) the Masoretic text, written c. 1000 AD, is the first text that removed 600 years from the genealogy of Shem, making it appear that he lived during Abraham’s life. The KJV mirrors the altered genealogies, not the ancient texts.

 

[createdtoworship]

Study Chazalic literature- it was a common belief that Melchizedek was also Shem. However, this teaching has never been observed in any OT commentaries prior to the writing of the NT which associates Jesus with Melchizedek. The genealogies in all OT mss predating the Masoretic text do not support this in that they show that Shem died more than 600 years before Abraham. (See LXX and DSS- both of which predate Jesus.) the Masoretic text, written c. 1000 AD, is the first text that removed 600 years from the genealogy of Shem, making it appear that he lived during Abraham’s life. The KJV mirrors the altered genealogies, not the ancient texts.

Shem some early pagan writings have equated him with Zeroaster (the founder of magic arts).

"The Mischief of Cham

Cham was into magic art, and was called Zoroast. He hated his father, because he thought himself least loved by him. (Is this the well known "second child syndrome"?). By his magic he bewitched his father in the "places of generation" (genitals), so that he disabled him forever to have the use of women, or to get more children. For these and his other detestable impieties, he incurred the wrath and displeasure of God, in a most grievous manner, and was afterwards banished from his father, who afflicted him with no further punishment."- Borusus chaldean historian

and regarding the KJV using altered genealogies, alot of bibles used the massoretic text:

"The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles such as the King James Version and American Standard Version and (after 1943) for some versions of Catholic Bibles, replacing the Vulgate translation, although the Vulgate had itself already been revised in light of the Masoretic text in the 1500s."

 

[KagomeShuko]

KJVO is COMPLETELY man made. I don't know where people get that.

They act like the KJV was the original text. I tell people that have to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic if they want to read the original texts that make up the Bible.

Oh, yeah, and that they are books that make up the Bible. They are books that come from different years. It's not like God sent down all of these words to one man who recorded them all in perfect King George's English.

The more we learn, the better translations of Bible are developed. It's okay to have personal favorites, but to say one is better than the other is a problem.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Shem some early pagan writings have equated him with Zeroaster (the founder of magic arts).

"The Mischief of Cham

Cham was into magic art, and was called Zoroast. He hated his father, because he thought himself least loved by him. (Is this the well known "second child syndrome"?). By his magic he bewitched his father in the "places of generation" (genitals), so that he disabled him forever to have the use of women, or to get more children. For these and his other detestable impieties, he incurred the wrath and displeasure of God, in a most grievous manner, and was afterwards banished from his father, who afflicted him with no further punishment."- Borusus chaldean historian

and regarding the KJV using altered genealogies, alot of bibles used the massoretic text:

"The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles such as the King James Version and American Standard Version and (after 1943) for some versions of Catholic Bibles, replacing the Vulgate translation, although the Vulgate had itself already been revised in light of the Masoretic text in the 1500s."

Shem some early pagan writings have equated him with Zeroaster (the founder of magic arts).

"The Mischief of Cham

Cham was into magic art, and was called Zoroast. He hated his father, because he thought himself least loved by him. (Is this the well known "second child syndrome"?). By his magic he bewitched his father in the "places of generation" (genitals), so that he disabled him forever to have the use of women, or to get more children. For these and his other detestable impieties, he incurred the wrath and displeasure of God, in a most grievous manner, and was afterwards banished from his father, who afflicted him with no further punishment."- Borusus chaldean historian

and regarding the KJV using altered genealogies, alot of bibles used the massoretic text:

"The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles such as the King James Version and American Standard Version and (after 1943) for some versions of Catholic Bibles, replacing the Vulgate translation, although the Vulgate had itself already been revised in light of the Masoretic text in the 1500s."

Shem some early pagan writings have equated him with Zeroaster (the founder of magic arts).

"The Mischief of Cham

Cham was into magic art, and was called Zoroast. He hated his father, because he thought himself least loved by him. (Is this the well known "second child syndrome"?). By his magic he bewitched his father in the "places of generation" (genitals), so that he disabled him forever to have the use of women, or to get more children. For these and his other detestable impieties, he incurred the wrath and displeasure of God, in a most grievous manner, and was afterwards banished from his father, who afflicted him with no further punishment."- Borusus chaldean historian

and regarding the KJV using altered genealogies, alot of bibles used the massoretic text:

"The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles such as the King James Version and American Standard Version and (after 1943) for some versions of Catholic Bibles, replacing the Vulgate translation, although the Vulgate had itself already been revised in light of the Masoretic text in the 1500s."

Not sure if I want to ask how you relate Cham to Shem, but that comes from an ancient Persian religion and has no realistic similarities to the Old Testament.

Yes, I am fully aware that most Bible translations have been modeled after the Masoretic text and contain much of the alterations... that’s why I read translations based on older texts that are in agreement regarding context.

I do find it interesting that the KJVO believers use the idea that other versions “take out” certain verses as proof of the accuracy of their version, and the exact opposite is easily understood; that is, KJV translators used texts that added uninspired commentary as inspired scripture. Most (perhaps all) of them would rather argue than research the older texts.

 

[createdtoworship]

KJVO is COMPLETELY man made. I don't know where people get that.

They act like the KJV was the original text. I tell people that have to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic if they want to read the original texts that make up the Bible.

Oh, yeah, and that they are books that make up the Bible. They are books that come from different years. It's not like God sent down all of these words to one man who recorded them all in perfect King George's English.

The more we learn, the better translations of Bible are developed. It's okay to have personal favorites, but to say one is better than the other is a problem.

Thanks for the post. However no one I know of in this thread have been teaching the KJV is God's word. God's word is the original autographs in hebrew and greek. We don't actually have any of those in existence right now, so technically God's word does not exist. However we trust in God's preserving had upon the copies due to scribal redundancy and traditions of the scribes to meticulously copy word for word exactly from one to another. In fact I believe last page of this thread I posted about 20 variations of the KJV ranging from literal, to childrens bibles to updated modern text versions. So this point does not really work at this point in the conversation. If there were any KJVO'ers like that , they are long gone and I have not even seen them in this thread. I use the NKJV, which is heresy to a KJVOer

 

[KagomeShuko]

Thanks for the post. However no one I know of in this thread have been teaching the KJV is God's word.

Maybe not in this thread, but I've certainly ran into them in real life. They tell me that the KJV is God's word and all other translations are of the devil . . .

I wonder what they think about Bibles in other languages . . .

 

[createdtoworship]

Maybe not in this thread, but I've certainly ran into them in real life. They tell me that the KJV is God's word and all other translations are of the devil . . .

I wonder what they think about Bibles in other languages . . .

So technically it would be a straw man fallacy For example if I mentioned some one who said that NIV was God's direct word and every KJVer was of satan, even though no one specifically mentioned it in this thread, that would be a fallacy. I would be stating something that is not accurate for this thread for the purpose of attacking or presenting a straw man of the NIV believer. That is a dishonst tactic. To mention extremes for the purpose of setting up those who do believe in the manuscript behind the KJV, as a KJVer is misleading, and it's a strawman fallacy.

 

[createdtoworship]

But anyway lets talk about how the only verse in the Bible that mentions the trinity in one verse, all three persons of the God head in one verse, is removed from modern translations. Not only that but three verses that speak of fasting as a means of excersizing some higher rank demons is also removed from modern translations. But for now lets talk about the johannian comma, 1 John 5:7-9. And why that should be in the scripture.

A Case For the Authenticity of 1st John 5:7-8

https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

for a critical analysis of this debate from a respectable scholar that is opposing the view that 1 John 5:7-9 should be included, you have FF bruce as well as this author from Dallas, so you can get up to speed with this article and arm yourself to enter this debate, and above we can look at some KJVer sites and see what they say, so hopefully weighing both sides we should be able to come to a conclusion.

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org

Both sides are biased, so they even out, Bible.org created their own Bible the NET bible, so of course they will support the manuscript behind that one, so again both sides are biased, and you can't get away from bias, you and I are biased for that matter, so you simply have to ignore the bias, and treat all arguments logically, and factually.

I believe this verse should be included and modern translations universally remove it.

it's the only verse in the Bible that proves the trinity in one verse.

 

[Concord1968]

I wonder what they think about Bibles in other languages . . .

One of the leading KJVO people, Dr Sam Gipp, said openly on the John Ankerberg show that if someone in another country (Russia was his example) wanted the word of God he would have to learn English.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

One of the leading KJVO people, Dr Sam Gipp, said openly on the John Ankerberg show that if someone in another country (Russia was his example) wanted the word of God he would have to learn English.

That’s one example of how deluded the KJVO movement is; I’ve had adherents claim that KJV was superior to the original languages. Ironically, the KJV translators stated in the original KJV texts that this version was “not needed” and had no superior status.

 

[createdtoworship]

That’s one example of how deluded the KJVO movement is; I’ve had adherents claim that KJV was superior to the original languages. Ironically, the KJV translators stated in the original KJV texts that this version was “not needed” and had no superior status.

the only reason why KJV is superior is because it uses a literal approach versus "dynamic equivalent." And it uses superior manuscripts, not manuscripts that are missing over 200 verses including 1 John 5:7-9 which is the ONLY verse in the Bible proving the trinity in one verse.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

the only reason why KJV is superior is because it uses a literal approach versus "dynamic equivalent." And it uses superior manuscripts, not manuscripts that are missing over 200 verses including 1 John 5:7-9 which is the ONLY verse in the Bible proving the trinity in one verse.

That verse is only found in later manuscripts, half of which show that it was a marginal note by a translator. No early mss have ever contained that verse.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

the only reason why KJV is superior is because it uses a literal approach versus "dynamic equivalent." And it uses superior manuscripts, not manuscripts that are missing over 200 verses including 1 John 5:7-9 which is the ONLY verse in the Bible proving the trinity in one verse.

Please take a moment to think about what you’ve claimed... that the KJV is superior to the original language because it added a verse that is the only verse that proves a doctrine to which you adhere... I’m not questioning your belief in the trinity, but rather the value you place on that one verse that suddenly started appearing in later mss as a personal margin note of a translator...

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

the only reason why KJV is superior is because it uses a literal approach versus "dynamic equivalent." And it uses superior manuscripts, not manuscripts that are missing over 200 verses including 1 John 5:7-9 which is the ONLY verse in the Bible proving the trinity in one verse.

Have you considered the origin of the altered genealogy of Noah’s son Shem in the KJV? There is a 600 year +\- difference between mss that pre-date Christ by 200 years and those that didn’t exist prior to 1000 AD. KJV matches the post-Christ mss that originated with the Masoretic text which was altered by Jewish scribes in c.1000 AD in an attempt to show that Shem was Melchizedek, thus being able to deny Jesus’ claim to being the Messiah by contradicting the NT writings that relate Jesus to Melchizedek. ...just food for thought.

 

[createdtoworship]

That verse is only found in later manuscripts, half of which show that it was a marginal note by a translator. No early mss have ever contained that verse.

why were early church fathers quoting the verse including the "three in one."
as scripture?

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

why were early church fathers quoting the verse including the "three in one."
as scripture?

Perhaps because people “read into” scripture something that isn’t really said. Example: (Some believe) that Matthew 18:20 is the definition of church, yet nothing in that entire passage of scripture gives any such indication. I’ve seen this written in the margin of people’s’ bibles... if the translators in the fifteenth century had this in mind, we may have read this as inspired scripture in our modern bible versions; instead, they believed scripture taught the trinity (again, I’m not denying that), and someone made a handwritten notation that helped them to understand it and someone else saw it and inserted it into the text. This has been verified that this verse never appeared in any manuscript until the 16th century- and it was only in the margin as a note.

 

[createdtoworship]

Perhaps because people “read into” scripture something that isn’t really said. Example: (Some believe) that Matthew 18:20 is the definition of church, yet nothing in that entire passage of scripture gives any such indication. I’ve seen this written in the margin of people’s’ bibles... if the translators in the fifteenth century had this in mind, we may have read this as inspired scripture in our modern bible versions; instead, they believed scripture taught the trinity (again, I’m not denying that), and someone made a handwritten notation that helped them to understand it and someone else saw it and inserted it into the text. This has been verified that this verse never appeared in any manuscript until the 16th century- and it was only in the margin as a note.

I know I have read the margins but you said "maybe" which means you don't rally know. So I can likewise say that "maybe" there is a non extant manuscript that perished, that authors used to to read that verse. Which makes sense because many byzantine readings of verses can be found in patristic quotations. (use harry sturz books for that and I have other online quotations of these). The problem with thinking only the existing old manuscripts are the originals is that you neglect the majority of manuscripts which were copied accurately but not necessarily as old. 1 John 5:7-9 is in the majority of manuscripts, and I have quotations from it in early church fathers, so again I ask....how is it they were quoting the same version of the verse that the NKJV has?

 

[sweetycakes1]

Perhaps because people “read into” scripture something that isn’t really said.

Not only do people read into scripture, but they also can disregard the plain meaning of the text.
We all come to scripture with our own biases either religious or cultural whether or not we realize it. It would be advisable for us all to take a step back when trying to interpret scripture and keep that pitfall in mind. 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 head coverings for the woman is an excellent example as is Ephesians 5 wives submit yourselves to your husband. Those are just some examples.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

I know I have read the margins but you said "maybe" which means you don't rally know. So I can likewise say that "maybe" there is a non extant manuscript that perished, that authors used to to read that verse. Which makes sense because many byzantine readings of verses can be found in patristic quotations. (use harry sturz books for that and I have other online quotations of these). The problem with thinking only the existing old manuscripts are the originals is that you neglect the majority of manuscripts which were copied accurately but not necessarily as old. 1 John 5:7-9 is in the majority of manuscripts, and I have quotations from it in early church fathers, so again I ask....how is it they were quoting the same version of the verse that the NKJV has?

I know I have read the margins but you said "maybe" which means you don't rally know. So I can likewise say that "maybe" there is a non extant manuscript that perished, that authors used to to read that verse. Which makes sense because many byzantine readings of verses can be found in patristic quotations. (use harry sturz books for that and I have other online quotations of these). The problem with thinking only the existing old manuscripts are the originals is that you neglect the majority of manuscripts which were copied accurately but not necessarily as old. 1 John 5:7-9 is in the majority of manuscripts, and I have quotations from it in early church fathers, so again I ask....how is it they were quoting the same version of the verse that the NKJV has?

I said “perhaps” because I was offering a possible reason for someone to make an error in interpretation... I was merely stating it in a way that would prevent you from accusing me of claiming to read the minds of people from hundreds of years ago. So to correct my previous error in communication, yes, people in fact DO read into scripture ideas that scripture never intended to say, and that little verse is a prime example. I do KNOW that verse never existed in any manuscript prior to the 16th century and if anyone knows otherwise, they need to publish proof. As it stands, the KJV adds to scripture that which is uninspired and not penned by the original writers of the New Testament. There is no honest rebuttal to that, nor is there reasonable doubt to the knowledge that the verse was an “add-on” more than a millennium after the original letters.

 

[Non-profit Prophet]

Not only do people read into scripture, but they also can disregard the plain meaning of the text.
We all come to scripture with our own biases either religious or cultural whether or not we realize it. It would be advisable for us all to take a step back when trying to interpret scripture and keep that pitfall in mind. 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 head coverings for the woman is an excellent example as is Ephesians 5 wives submit yourselves to your husband. Those are just some examples.

I agree that some read the Bible with a preconceived bias. I’ve learned personally how that works, and I have also learned how not to let that bias pollute my understanding of God’s Word. I’ve changed many of my previously held doctrinal beliefs in order to align with scripture.