The KJVO myth...

[dqhall]

Some of these documents are of dubious provenance. At least with Tyndale et al you know who you're dealing with.

Given that fraud across archaeology and paleontology has been the rule and not the exception over the last 2 centuries, I take a lot of convincing.

Can you find any credible sources challenging the authenticity of the Codex Sinaiticus or the Dead Sea Scrolls? Their provenance is not disputed.

 

[Albion]

I love the KJV, but its only one of several good Bible translations.

This is why, when new Christians ask about the translation they 'should' use, I suggest that they get one of those editions in which four different versions (including the KJV) are printed in parallel columns.

 

[1Reformedman]

What do you mean no one has refuted it? People have correctly pointed out that it's incoherent to use this to argue for the KJV because the KJV didn't come up with this chapter/verse numbering. Further, this would apply to any Bible that uses this chapter/verse numbering, not just the KJV.

But the argument has an additional problem. Even if this as limited to the KJV and the KJV did come up with the numbering system... what does this prove? That the central verse of the Bible is an interesting one? People claim all kinds of weird mathematics-based hidden messages in the Bible, I see no reason to see this as anything particularly special.

So the argument that the KJV is somehow unique relies on something that seems coincidental, isn't limited to the KJV, and didn't originate from the KJV. So how is this in any way an actual argument for the KJV?

The KJV is unique. In so much that it is translated from only one manuscript and was heavily influenced by the Geneva bible in the stages of its development. Some folks grab at whatever they can to support their particular version of the bible.

As a for instance.....For a while, the charismatic movement was big on the amplified bible.

 

[Albion]

And the KJV has probs not found in newer versions.
Actually, it's ACCURACY that's the most-important. The KJV was largely made from older versions, & carried over many of their goofs Main thing the AV men did was make some of the language & spellings more-modern, and did SOME re-translating of some passages. (A glaring KJV goof is "Easter" in Acts 12:4, carried over from older versions. By the 1600s, passover and Easter were separate words.)

Yeh, I hear that said frequently, but if we for a moment set aside the handful of examples of a word here or there, the fact remains that the differences in meaning, overall, are minor and/or inconsequential. AND THEN, that fact has to be balanced against the mistakes made in the newer translations. It is wrong to argue this issue presuming that none of these newer ones ever conveys a mistaken idea to the reader.

The #1 complaint actually is "I don't get what them big words mean."

 

[Daniel C]

Agreed. All Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

Can you give scriptural support that ALL Bible translations are the product of Gods perfect word?

 

[robycop3]

Sure, no problem dealing in authorised editions in the US, but publishing (ie reproducing) the text for sale would not be legal according to UK law, because copyright is by law a worldwide right.

So let's say you did that in the US and then went on holiday to England, you might find your stay becomes a little extended at Her Majesty's pleasure.

I think the key words here are "for profit". The Gideons reproduce whole Bibles, including the KJV, several other English versions copyrighted in the US, & several other translations in other languages, bit they pass them out for free, in the US & also in the UK & other nations. And no one has made a serious attempt to stop them from doing this, except in Moslem nations.

 

[1Reformedman]

Please.go.back to the link in that post. I show an image proving the inspiration of not only the KJV but also God's hand upon the all.of the organization of the KJV verse divisions etc. It's not saying they are perfect but that God's hand is upon the KJV. And as far as I know this does not work with other bibles like the NIV or ESV or NASB.

I am not interested in bible version conspiracies. You're simply showing your opinion is commensurate with the opinion of someone else regarding his/her opinion that God's hand was somehow protecting the KJV more than any other UNINSPIRED VERSION of the Bible. Considering who King James was do you honestly think God would do as you suggest so that worldly king to take credit for a translation of God's word? There are many additions to the KJV. Verses and portions of chapters not found in the earliest of manuscript evidence did you know that? I want to remind about you one thing in the bible and I ask that you take it to heart. Satan has, can and continues to come as an angel of light seeking whom he may devour. Little things like the alleged morsel you describe are the very kind of things satan would use to get you caught up on. I remember when I use to rely heavily on my view of why Satan rebelled in heaven against God. Its actually one of the best explanations I have ever heard on the matter but its nonetheless unprovable just as is your claim to God has taken special care of one version over any another. One last thing and its something many dont know. The book of Kings was never meant to be separated. Which translation did this first? FYI Im not talking exclusively about 1 and kings. I'm talking about the 4 books that used to be together in the OT and have since been separated into 4 parts. 1 and 2nd Kings and 1 and 2nd Samuel. The very fact that this happened and that its is seen in the KJV debunks your entire theory.

 

[robycop3]

Can you give scriptural support that ALL Bible translations are the product of Gods perfect word?

No, & I'll be the first to admit there are bogus versions out there such as the JWs' New World Translation or Blanco's Clear Word Bible.

And, I'll also readily admit there are some groddy versions whose makers intended them to be legitimate versions, such as The Message, & the Living Bible. (I don't care for paraphrased versions.)

 

[1Reformedman]

Yeh, I hear that said frequently, but if we for a moment set aside the handful of examples of a word here or there, the fact remains that the differences in meaning, overall, are minor and/or inconsequential. AND THEN, that fact has to be balanced against the mistakes made in the newer translations. It is wrong to argue this issue presuming that none of these newer ones ever conveys a mistaken idea to the reader.

The #1 complaint actually is "I don't get what them big words mean."

How about entire sections of chapters not found in the earliest of manuscript evidence? Does that change anything? Or how about the fact that 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Samuel were all one book originally? Dont you know it was the English version that separated them? When together they were known as the book of Kingdoms. What is now commonly known as 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are called by the Vulgate, in imitation of the Septuagint, 1 Kings and 2 Kings respectively. What is now commonly known as 1 Kings and 2 Kings would have been 3 Kings and 4 Kings in old Bibles before the year 1516 such as the Vulgate and the Septuagint respectively.[12] The division we know today, in English, used in Protestant and Catholic Bibles, came into use in 1517.

 

[Daniel C]

No, & I'll be the first to admit there are bogus versions out there such as the JWs' New World Translation or Blanco's Clear Word Bible.

And, I'll also readily admit there are some groddy versions whose makers intended them to be legitimate versions, such as The Message, & the Living Bible. (I don't care for paraphrased versions.)

So why did you say they were all inspired translations then? Now you are saying they are not all inspired.

The point being,I don't see why the team of translators that put the KJV together would write in their version they made was superior. Would make them sound like self righteous braggarts.

 

[Albion]

How about entire sections of chapters not found in the earliest of manuscript evidence? Does that change anything? Or how about the fact that 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Samuel were all one book originally? Dont you know it was the English version that separated them? When together they were known as the book of Kingdoms. What is now commonly known as 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are called by the Vulgate, in imitation of the Septuagint, 1 Kings and 2 Kings respectively.

Do you get that material with the KJV...or not? Which "modern language" versions of the Bible present it in the fashion you are advocating here? And how critical is the labelling of it all, considering that there weren't even numbered verses in the original manuscripts yet we all take that sort of thing for granted now with every Bible translation?

 

[1Reformedman]

Do you get that material with the KJV...or not? Which "modern language" versions of the Bible present it in the fashion you are advocating here? And how critical is the labeling of it all, considering that there weren't even-numbered verses in the original manuscripts yet we all take that sort of thing for granted now with every Bible translation?

No modern English versions do. But they did before 1517. Taking things for granted is a problem when there is no basis for it. Do not add to or take away from the word of God. Its that simple.

 

[robycop3]

Yeh, I hear that said frequently, but if we for a moment set aside the handful of examples of a word here or there, the fact remains that the differences in meaning, overall, are minor and/or inconsequential. AND THEN, that fact has to be balanced against the mistakes made in the newer translations. It is wrong to argue this issue presuming that none of these newer ones ever conveys a mistaken idea to the reader.

The #1 complaint actually is "I don't get what them big words mean."

Again, ACCURACY comes into play. "Thou shalt not KILL" is inaccurate, & has caused all sortsa problems for many years, giving rise to "conscientious objectors", protests at official executions, etc. And in the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" is certainly not accurate.

As I said, ALL translations have some goofs & booboos in them.

And still the fact remains: the KJVO myth is false due to its having no Scriptural support.

 

[Albion]

No modern English versions do.

So that wouldn't make a very strong argument for favoring them over the KJV, would it?

 

[1Reformedman]

So that wouldn't make a very strong argument for favoring them over the KJV, would it?

Did I say anything about favoring one translation over another? You trying to put words into my mouth, albion?

 

[robycop3]

The KJV is unique. In so much that it is translated from only one manuscript and was heavily influenced by the Geneva bible in the stages of its development. Some folks grab at whatever they can to support their particular version of the bible.

As a for instance.....For a while, the charismatic movement was big on the amplified bible.

Well, actually, Sir, the AV men used some 20 mss.

And the same God who preserved them, also preserved those that were found later. And the facts of the preservation of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus clearly show God's work.

 

[Albion]

As I said, ALL translations have some goofs & booboos in them.

And still the fact remains: the KJVO myth is false due to its having no Scriptural support.

And now we are at the heart of the point I was making and, in fact, it is almost the only point I was making.

I am not arguing for or against KJVO (King James Version ONLY). I am, in fact, not a believer in the theory that only the KJV can be used, etc. etc. Other of my posts have, I think, made that clear.

My point is that the complaints we hear saying that the KJV is defective and so we ought to use some more recent version of the Bible really do not hold up.

 

[Albion]

Did I say anything about favoring one translation over another? You trying to puts words into my mouth, albion?

The sentence that you quoted made no reference whatsoever to anything you have stated.

You sort of dropped into the discussion here in mid-course without reading all the previous posts, I am going to guess.

 

[1Reformedman]

Again, ACCURACY comes into play. "Thou shalt not KILL" is inaccurate, & has caused all sortsa problems for many years, giving rise to "conscientious objectors", protests at official executions, etc. And in the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" is certainly not accurate.

As I said, ALL translations have some goofs & booboos in them.

And still the fact remains: the KJVO myth is false due to its having no Scriptural support.

Hey bro. you referenced "THE" in 1 timothy 6:10 and it seemed, IMO, you were trying to say the definite article "THE" isnt found in the greek in that verse. I contend that it is so found there. 1 Timothy 6:10 Interlinear: for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows;.

The grammarian Daniel B. Wallace lists six alternative possible translations of the primary Greek text, 1 Timothy 6:10. There are two reasons for this: first, it is difficult to tell whether the noun "root" is intended to be indefinite, definite, or qualitative. Second, the Greek word for "all" may mean "all without exclusion" or "all without distinction".But by reading more verses on either side of 1 Timothy 6:10 a greater surety and confidence that the message is the coveting and striving of greed for something on earth is the sin the Jews and Christians define, where money could be exchanged with anything else on the earth, for example: power. The opposite of greed is charity, each of the Seven deadly sins has a counterpart in the Seven virtues.

 

[1Reformedman]

Well, actually, Sir, the AV men used some 20 mss.

And the same God who preserved them, also preserved those that were found later. And the facts of the preservation of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus clearly show God's work.

The KJV was translated from the textus receptus.