The KJVO myth...

[trophy33]

I think Gotquestions knows more about the topic than you do. But even they are wrong about the King James Bible...

So, either they know more than you do or you take a freedom not to follow the info on that page. So I can do it, too.
Gotquestion is just a website written by many people, they have their opinions and those people are not inerrant.

Anyways, Nestle and Aland based their work off of Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT text and they were known occultists.

Wrong again. Nestlé Aland is not based on W&H edition.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is absolutely wrong statement.

The first printed Bible or the 1st mass produced book was the Gutenberg Bible printed in the 1450’s.
In 1611, a revolutionary change had happened, as well. A Bible came out that would eventually in time be able to be in the hands of the common man whereby he could more easily afford it than ever before. Before this time, it was hard for the average person to acquire a Bible (like we take for granted today).

 

[trophy33]

To say that there is no inerrant bible is close to blasphemy and very ignorant.

Certainly not. Its just accepting the reality without any nationalistic fetishism or fanatism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So, either they know more than you do or you take a freedom not to follow the info on that page. So I can do it, too.
Gotquestion is just a website written by many people, they have their opinions and those people are not inerrant.

Wikipedia states:

“In 1898 Nestle published a handbook of textual criticism, and in 1898 published the first edition of a Greek New Testament under the title Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto. The text of this Greek New Testament was combined with the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf (Editio octava critica maior), The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth. It was edited by the Württemberg Bible Society in Stuttgart. This edition eliminated the extremes of Tischendorf, such as partiality to Sinaiticus, and of Westcott and Hort, such as partiality to Vaticanus.[2]

Source:
Eberhard Nestle - Wikipedia

Wrong again. Nestlé Aland is not based on W&H edition.

Wikipedia states:

The text of this Greek New Testament was combined with the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf (Editio octava critica maior), The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth. It was edited by the Württemberg Bible Society in Stuttgart. This edition eliminated the extremes of Tischendorf, such as partiality to Sinaiticus, and of Westcott and Hort, such as partiality to Vaticanus.[2]

Source:
Eberhard Nestle - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All of which has nothing to do with the KJV.

Modern translations are fine, especially for those of us who cannot read the King's English.

Yes, I cannot read 1600’s English always, either. So I do use Modern Translations to help update the archaic language found in the King James Bible. But we can only follow one Bible because not all Bibles say the same thing. We have to make a choice in which Bible is the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. Why? Because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine… and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto ALL good works. Please take note the verse does not say Some Scripture. It says ALL Scripture.

 

[trophy33]

The first printed Bible or the 1st mass produced book was the Gutenberg Bible printed in the 1450’s.
In 1611, a revolutionary change had happened, as well. A Bible came out that would be able to be in the hands of the common man whereby he could more easily afford it than ever before. Before this time, it was hard for the average person to acquire a Bible (like we take for granted today).

No revolutionary change happened in 1611. The KJV was just another translation in the line of many others.

The churches of the Protestant Reformation translated the Greek of the Textus Receptus to produce vernacular Bibles, such as the German Luther Bible (1522), the Polish Brest Bible (1563), the Spanish "Biblia del Oso" (in English: Bible of the Bear, 1569) which later became the Reina-Valera Bible upon its first revision in 1602, the Czech Melantrich Bible (1549) and Bible of Kralice (1579-1593) and numerous English translations of the Bible... the Matthew Bible, the first complete English translation of the Bible. Attempts at an "authoritative" English Bible for the Church of England would include the Great Bible of 1538 (also relying on Coverdale's work), the Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version (the King James Version) of 1611...
The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years.

Bible translations - Wikipedia

Your presentation of facts is very biased.

 

[trophy33]

Wikipedia states:

“In 1898 Nestle published a handbook of textual criticism, and in 1898 published the first edition of a Greek New Testament under the title Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto. The text of this Greek New Testament was combined with the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf (Editio octava critica maior), The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth. It was edited by the Württemberg Bible Society in Stuttgart. This edition eliminated the extremes of Tischendorf, such as partiality to Sinaiticus, and of Westcott and Hort, such as partiality to Vaticanus.[2]

Source:
Eberhard Nestle - Wikipedia



Wikipedia states:

The text of this Greek New Testament was combined with the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf (Editio octava critica maior), The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth. It was edited by the Württemberg Bible Society in Stuttgart. This edition eliminated the extremes of Tischendorf, such as partiality to Sinaiticus, and of Westcott and Hort, such as partiality to Vaticanus.[2]

Source:
Eberhard Nestle - Wikipedia

Nestlé Aland has never been based on W&H in any sense. Nestlé Aland has its origin in 1963 and is based on original manuscripts.

Nestlé editions (originated in 1898, notice the year) were based on comparing the three most prominent editions of that time - W&H, Tischendorf and Weymouth.

1. Nestlé is not Nestlé-Aland
2. Nestlé was not "based on W&H" as you unfairly claim, but was based on comparison of three editions and W&H was just one of them.

Nestle-Aland :: academic-bible.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No revolutionary change happened in 1611. The KJV was just another translation in a line of many others.

The churches of the Protestant Reformation translated the Greek of the Textus Receptus to produce vernacular Bibles, such as the German Luther Bible (1522), the Polish Brest Bible (1563), the Spanish "Biblia del Oso" (in English: Bible of the Bear, 1569) which later became the Reina-Valera Bible upon its first revision in 1602, the Czech Melantrich Bible (1549) and Bible of Kralice (1579-1593) and numerous English translations of the Bible... the Matthew Bible, the first complete English translation of the Bible. Attempts at an "authoritative" English Bible for the Church of England would include the Great Bible of 1538 (also relying on Coverdale's work), the Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version (the King James Version) of 1611...
The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years.

Bible translations - Wikipedia

Your presentation of facts is very biased.

Well, I imagine you may think that way, but in regards to the English translations you mentioned, they have problems in them. This is not the case with the King James Bible (Especially seeing the KJB went through a purification process that ended with the Cambridge Edition circa. 1900). By this time, men and women were able to have a pure Word of God in their hands. Families could own a pure Word and study it in their homes. This was a far departure from the past. Before the creation of the King James Bible in the 1600’s, it was not common for people to own their own Bible. So the truth was suppressed by the religious clergy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nestlé Aland has never been based on W&H in any sense. Nestlé Aland has its origin in 1963 and is based on original manuscripts.

Nestlé editions (originated in 1898, notice the year) was based on comparing the three most prominent editions of that time - W&H, Tischendorf and Weymouth.

1. Nestlé is not Nestlé-Aland
2. Nestlé was not "based on W&H" as you unfairly claim, but was based on comparison of three editions and W&H was just one of them.

I did not unfairly claim anything. They based their work off of Westcott and Hort’s work. Yes, their work was based off of other works, too. But what I said was not untrue. I did not say their work was based solely on W&H only.

 

[trophy33]

Well, I imagine you may think that way, but in regards to the English translations you mentioned, they have problems in them.
This is not the case with the King James Bible

Of course its the case with the KJV.

Before the creation of the King James Bible in the 1600’s, it was not common for people to own their own Bible.

It was actually very common in Europe. The KJV was quite late compared to Geneva Bible and to other European nations having their translations faster.

Also, when the English king James forced the kingdom of England to accept the KJV, puritans were much against it, having the Geneva Bible in their hands.

 

[trophy33]

I did not unfairly claim anything. They based their work off of Westcott and Hort’s work. Yes, their work was based off of other works, too. But what I said was not untrue. I did not say their work was based solely on W&H only.

Who are "they"? And if you talk just about Nestlé, why are you talking about it? Todays Nestlé-Aland are not Nestlé editions.

Its a totally different organization, people and the way of work.

 

[Strong in Him]

And there lies the problem. You ASSUME God could not or would not inspire the translators.

No, I said nothing at all about God not inspiring the translators.
I said that in the 400 years since the KJV was produced there have been discoveries made - manuscripts, like the dead sea scrolls, and that also language has changed.
This latter fact is obvious - some words don't mean now what they once did. When I was at school it was fine to say "I feel gay today" - everyone would know that you felt happy. Say that now and people will assume you mean homosexual. Likewise, some Bibles use the word "wicked", meaning sin "all are wicked". Tell a teenager today that they are wicked, and they'll think you are complimenting them. The NT was written in Koine Greek - street language; the language of the people. No one uses the English today that the KJV is written in.
It's nothing to do with learning other languages - it's how our own has changed; and maybe even how new discoveries have been made in translation.

 

[robycop3]

The fact that God preserved you to your current age does not mean you are inerrant or perfect.

So I do not understand your point. There is no causality between preservation and inerrancy. You said all manuscripts are inerrrant.

The need for critical editions like that of Erasmus or of Nestlé Aland is caused by the fact that every manuscript we have is very errant and we therefore need to compare them with each other and so to come to the most probable original reading.

They're inerrant as far as God is concerned, or He wouldn't've preserved them. Lotsa difference in preserving a person & an inanimate object.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am not new to the Bible. This is just wishful thinking.

No, it's not.
Are those verses I quoted in your Bible or not? If so; guess what? They're in mine too.

None of these verses you quote point blank teach the Trinity like 1 John 5:7 KJB.

They don't need to.
The Trinity is taught in the Bible - full stop. It's taught in the verses that I mentioned, and others.
It's your idea only that there has to be only one verse that teaches the Trinity - leading you to draw the conclusion that because the KJV has that verse, then that is the only Bible that teaches the Trinity. It's not. I believe in, and teach, the Trinity and I don't read the KJV.

For there is a difference between verses implying the Trinity and one that actually teaches it. 1 John 5:7 KJB is the only one.

That's your conclusion.

It’s why you are not actually quoting the words of these verses.

That is not only an erroneous conclusion, it is a judgement.
If you put your cursor over the references that I gave, you'll see that they appear on the screen. I provided Biblical references to illustrate my point; why are you saying that because I haven't written the words of the verses out it full it means that, somehow, they do not teach what they teach?

In the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original).

Yes; God spoke his word through the prophets, it was written down and copies would have been made.
So?

So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical.

Good job I never said that then.
But it's what you seem to be saying about modern versions.

Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect

And one logical implication is therefore that no perfect copy of God's word existed before the KJV. Which would mean you are saying that Jesus, THE Word of God, read and learned the Scriptures, which were imperfect copies.
So how can you trust them?
Jesus quoted from Genesis, Isaiah, Jonah and others and fulfilled prophecies. If the manuscripts that he had were all imperfect copies, how do you know that he got it right, fulfilled the right prophecies or that the prophecies were themselves correct?

Another implication is that Christians who read imperfect, and you have previously used the word "corrupt", versions are less than Christian, not very good Christians, not very knowledgeable - we must be; we are using Bibles that are less than perfect.

That has huge implications for salvation - and also for these forums, as you are not allowed to state or imply that someone is not saved.

This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

Another erroneous conclusion.
Not to mention the fact that there is more than one version of the KJV, this apparently "perfect" Bible.

 

[trophy33]

They're inerrant as far as God is concerned, or He wouldn't've preserved them.

Are you inerrant and perfect just because you exist?

Lotsa difference in preserving a person & an inanimate object.

But no difference regarding your claim of inerrancy. The simple fact that manuscripts exist does not mean they are inerrant or perfect.

 

[Strong in Him]

A Side By Side Comparison With
the KJV vs. Modern Translations
Clearly Shows That They are Inferior:

A simple side by side comparison shows that the KJV is superior to the Modern Translations in regards to the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, God's Word, etc.
​

​

Sorry you have just spent a lot of time on that post, but no; it doesn't.

It may show that they are different to the KJV. But "different" does not mean "inferior" - unless your starting point is that only the KJV is perfect. In which case, anything compared with the KJV will be inferior.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, it's not.
Are those verses I quoted in your Bible or not? If so; guess what? They're in mine too.

They don't need to.
The Trinity is taught in the Bible - full stop. It's taught in the verses that I mentioned, and others.
It's your idea only that there has to be only one verse that teaches the Trinity - leading you to draw the conclusion that because the KJV has that verse, then that is the only Bible that teaches the Trinity. It's not. I believe in, and teach, the Trinity and I don't read the KJV.

You can keep hitting the disagree button, but unless you actually demonstrate your case with showing the actual words in Scripture, you got nothing. For it’s not an opinion that there is only one verse in the Bible that teaches the Trinity directly. It’s simply a fact. Again, other verses may imply the Trinity indirectly, but there is a difference between verses implying the Trinity vs. an actual verse directly teaching the Trinity. Again, the words of the verses you stated were not actually posted or highlighted because you know deep down they really do not say directly teach the Trinity like 1 John 5:7 does. Don’t believe me? Just quote the actual words of the verses and highlight them to see if they actually directly teach the Trinity. The Trinity is defined as the Lord our God is one God and yet He also exists as three distinct persons. 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that is the clearest in describing this truth. No other verse says, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7).

That is not only an erroneous conclusion, it is a judgement.
If you put your cursor over the references that I gave, you'll see that they appear on the screen. I provided Biblical references to illustrate my point; why are you saying that because I haven't written the words of the verses out it full it means that, somehow, they do not teach what they teach?

But most people are not going to read the verses (without you quoting the actual words). Again, I challenge you to quote the actual words and highlight them that proves your case. Just throwing a bunch of verse numbers at me does not prove anything. You actually have to demonstrate by quoting the actual words of those verses for all to see clearly and offer a commentary explaining how I am wrong because of what that verse says. If you want, I can go through these verses if you like. But we both know that they don’t defend the Trinity directly. Indirect? Yes. Directly? No.

Yes; God spoke his word through the prophets, it was written down and copies would have been made.
So?

You fail to understand that God does not change. He still makes copies that are perfect today.

Good job I never said that then.
But it's what you seem to be saying about modern versions.

Do you believe there is a perfect Word of God in existence today?
Yes, or no?

And one logical implication is therefore that no perfect copy of God's word existed before the KJV. Which would mean you are saying that Jesus, THE Word of God, read and learned the Scriptures, which were imperfect copies.
So how can you trust them?
Jesus quoted from Genesis, Isaiah, Jonah and others and fulfilled prophecies. If the manuscripts that he had were all imperfect copies, how do you know that he got it right, fulfilled the right prophecies or that the prophecies were themselves correct?

Actually I believe God preserved His Word even before the King James Bible. I believe there is an unbroken line of His Word that existed in one form another. Why? Because I take it by faith that this is because Psalms 12:6-7 says that His Word are pure words, and they will exist for all generations. Because Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).

Another implication is that Christians who read imperfect, and you have previously used the word "corrupt", versions are less than Christian, not very good Christians, not very knowledgeable - we must be; we are using Bibles that are less than perfect.

That has huge implications for salvation - and also for these forums, as you are not allowed to state or imply that someone is not saved.

I don’t believe that understanding the KJB vs. Modern Translation topic correctly is a salvation issue, but it can be in certain cases. For we have to endure to the end in trusting God’s Word in believing in His grace, and in living holy for Him. Anyways, understanding this topic correctly deals with growth of the believer.

Another erroneous conclusion.

So you think there is no perfect Bible in existence today?

 

[robycop3]

So you take it by faith.
That's how we got God's word. And I don't know what became of the many mss. that Hermann Hoskier collated.

Please take no offense, but I see several problems here in this claim.

#1. You are suggesting that there is more than one set of manuscripts out there.

No offense taken. You're simply trying in vain to defend the KJVO myth, which is part of the purposeof this thread. But there are many, and varying sets or groups of mss. out there. They were written by different authors, mostly unknown to us, often decades or centuries apart. After all, the Old Testament mss. were old when Jesus was here.

This implies that they are not the same. For you are claiming that there are manuscripts in museums worldwide and than you say there is one known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They cannot both be correct. You either believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are the perfect Word of God, or you believe there is another set of manuscripts that are perfect. But seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls is not a complete 66 book Bible, we cannot conclude that it a perfect Word of God kept in it’s original state.

There are quite a few differences between the mss. of the Four Gospels. Are any of those Gospels incorrect? How about the differences between the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew & Luke?

#2. You have never seen and examined this perfect Bible and understood it for yourself.

In reality, most who deny the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God do not believe any Bible in existence today is perfect in any language whatsoever.

Can you show us one that is? We've proven it's not the KJV, as it has proven goofs & booboos.

So they believe all bibles in all languages no matter how old is in error. This is a problem because God said He would preserve His words and they are pure words in Psalms 12:6-7.

God's words are pure from the instant He speax them. But the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been proven false, even by the AV makers themselves. You know that, but you keep repeating it as if it were true.

Also, you have to be the arbiter of truth in deciding what words belong in the Bible and what words do not belong in the Bible.

ALL translators do. The AV men made a different version from any earlier ones. They decided what words went into it.

I don’t have that problem. I just believe God’s Word. All of His words have been preserved for us faithfully today. For Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Modern Translations have actually changed even the words of Jesus for the worse and not for the better. But of course you see what you want to see for your own reasons, friend.

Sorry, Sir, but you're shooting your own foot. The AV makers changed Jesus' words as translated into English. Just compare the KJV with any earlier English version, especially on a site such as ESword where you can easily make comparisons of any verse between versions.

And also, YOU have arbitrarily chosen the KJV (NOT "KJB") as the ONLY valid English Bible version out there with no authority to do so. Howdya KNOW you're right? Can God not present His word to man as HE chooses?

Don't you realize the KJVO myth is not found even in the KJV itself? It's all man-made & therefore false.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry you have just spent a lot of time on that post, but no; it doesn't.

It may show that they are different to the KJV. But "different" does not mean "inferior" - unless your starting point is that only the KJV is perfect. In which case, anything compared with the KJV will be inferior.

Uh… no. We can see that the KJB stands above the rest in regards to be more pure in doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. You can check the list of doctrines that are changed here. You can check out a list of commands that are changed here.

 

[Isilwen]

Yes, I cannot read 1600’s English always, either. So I do use Modern Translations to help update the archaic language found in the King James Bible. But we can only follow one Bible because not all Bibles say the same thing. We have to make a choice in which Bible is the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. Why? Because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine… and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto ALL good works. Please take note the verse does not say Some Scripture. It says ALL Scripture.

So then all translations are fine, per the scripture posted and your words.

BTW, not all of the language in the KJV is updated and that is still an issue for me as it's not the vernacular I use.

I also still believe that this whole thing about the KJV being the only suitable Bible to be from the pits of hell. As only the father of lies could come up with such to divide the masses.