The KJVO myth...

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, actually, the Gutenberg was the Latin Vulgate.

I never stated otherwise. But you need to understand there are is one non-Catholic Latin Vulgate, and one Catholic one.

Anyways, what you also fail to understand is that all Modern Translations can be traced back to Rome.

And the AV 1611 was too expensive for the common person to buy for awhile. OTOH, many could afford a Geneva edition. That's why it persisted for awhile after the AV came out. Part of the AV's expense was the king's TAX STAMP within it.

With the exception of possibly the book of Job, it could be that there was no Scripture before Moses. If there was the book of Job before Moses, that would have been the only Scripture in existence (if such were the case). But even the book of Job was not like the five Books of Moses (Which was a lot of Scripture). From that point on after Moses, lots more Scripture had come, as well. But does that mean that just because there may have been a time where no Scripture existed that it regulates the Bible that we have today as not being as important? No. Noah was told to build an Ark. But are we Christians told to build an Ark? No. Those instructions were for Noah. So we have to understand what our instructions are and take them seriously. But it is pretty amazing that God has moved with the times. Most people really did not have a full and complete Bible to own in their home in the late 1400’s.

A hand-written copy of the Bible would have cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars in the 15th century (late 1400’s). A printed Bible during the Reformation (1500’s), on the other hand, cost two or three weeks’ wages for a skilled worker. Thus, the middle class in the Reformation had, for the first time in history, the opportunity to own, and thus to read, a personal Bible.

For hundreds of years before the time of Reformation with the spread of Bibles going out, believers most likely would have to accept whatever copied scrolls they could get their hands on and I doubt all believers had the entire collection of what we have with the Holy Bible. So the Bible was not something one could be intimately owned for all before the Reformation. While I am not a Reformer who adheres to Martin Luther, or John Calvin, I do recognize that the Bible came out of their time and had an impact on many people in a positive way (Despite the Reformers). For God’s Word in a new way like never before was going out to the people or the common and it would forever change the face of history.

Many died for their faith by standing by what little fragments of God’s Word that they had.

The ultimate climax of the printing revolution is that today anyone can read the Bible in almost any language, essentially for free because of digital reproduction. So we take for granted the Word of God. It’s on our phones, tablets, computers, Echo dots, etc.; But do people cherish the Word of God like they did back then? I see many today just want to pick what parts of the Bible they like and discard the rest. I see many today say we really do not need to make the Bible our one and only final Word of authority on matters of the faith. Many have died for the book that is God’s Holy Word. But do many of us care to read it or study it? Do we care to truly make God known to us by His Word?

The Holy Bible is God’s instructions for us today.
We need to heed the Word as it exists today.
For God wants us to draw close to Him by His Word (i.e. the Holy Bible - >
Which is an amazing work of God).


Side Note:

Oh, and I never stated that common folk were able to buy the 1611 right away. But we know by the time of the explorers in coming to America, and the leading up to America being established as an independent nation from the British, the King James Bible was available to common families.


Source used for two short paragraphs in this post:
How reading the Bible changed in the early 16th century during the Reformation

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Long story short, if you want to attack the work of Nestle Aland just because they have some relations to catholics and because there are some catholics in the committee, you shoot yourself to your own leg, having your Bible based upon a text by the Roman Catholic priest, dedicated to Pope, forced by the English king and with verses non-existent in Greek.

Whatever you want to compare, you will always lose. Greek text based upon 6,000 manuscripts will always be superior and more authoritative than the KJV based on several late ones and with portions from Latin.

You see what you want to see.

In any event, may God bless you.

 

[robycop3]

We've already been over this... no point in going on. Fact is Easter is the fulfillment of Passover and you just don't like the word Easter I guess.

There's PLENTY of point in going on. EASTER is the man-made observance of the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection, while PASSOVER is the GOD-ORDAINED observance for Israel, to commemorate the exodus of Israel from Egypt, and God commanded Israel to observe it FOREVER. There's NOTHING from God commanding any Easter observance; just to honor the event itself as it's the central event of Christianity.

You and the false bibles act like the root is the ORIGIN of something. The root doesn't originate anything, the root feeds and keeps the plant standing. The love of money is the nourishment and support of all evil.

My, MY, you're getting hard-up for excuses to try to justify the false KJVO myth. JESUS is called the ROOT of Jesse. And no regular plant forms without a root.
Now, did the ISIS suicide bombers blow themselves up for lova money? Did the 9-11 plane crashers hit the World trade Center for money?

"and shalt be" is what kind of problem? What new doctrine got introduced there? There are hundreds of places if not thousands of places where the KJV doesn't match the Greek or Hebrew and each one of those gives greater clarity than the "originals".
I don't understand your side, it's as if you think God can't speak outside of the "originals" and he can't deviate it from them one iota.

If it was ADDED to a Bible version, it's against God's command to not ADD to His word. And without any manuscript source, it was ADDED. Just another reason nwhy the KJV is not perfect.

 

[trophy33]

You see what you want to see.

In any event, may God bless you.

The KJV had its time, but the time passed. Its obsolete compared to what we have today.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I have a Hebrew, greek and english interlinear bible and various concordances and lexicons. I like to be able to look up the meanings of some words in the original languages as knowing about word meanings is important to me. And yes, some bibles are more accurate than others. I have certain bible versions which I find helpful to me, but by choice the NIV is not one of them. I am not at all happy about the doctrinal accuracy of the NIV at all.

Some of my lexicons and my english man's greek and hebrew concordances are coded to the word numbering of the Strong's concordance and the Strong's concordance on based on the text of the King James version. As a result I use the King James Version quite a lot. I also live in the UK, where there are quite a lot of memorials to those who where burnt at the stake for possesing early English bibles. People died so that we could read the bible in English. I grew up with the King James version from my childhood. I feel very at home with it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Proverbs 30:5

The question is: Do you believe these words in Scripture?

 

[trophy33]

I have a Hebrew, greek and english interlinear bible and various concordances and lexicons. I like to be able to look up the meanings of some words in the original languages as knowing about word meanings is important to me. And yes, some bibles are more accurate than others. I have certain bible versions which I find helpful to me, but by choice the NIV is not one of them. I am not at all happy about the doctrinal accuracy of the NIV at all.

Some of my lexicons and my english man's greek and hebrew concordances are coded to the word numbering of the Strong's concordance and the Strong's concordance on based on the text of the King James version. As a result I use the King James Version quite a lot. I also live in the UK, where there are quite a lot of memorials to those who where burnt at the stake for possesing early English bibles. People died so that we could read the bible in English. I grew up with the King James version from my childhood. I feel very at home with it.

You can like the KJV because of some love for tradition, old English language or just because you are a traditional Englishman, its similar to Germans loving their Luther Bibel just because of their history. Almost every European nation has its national jewel in the form of some reformation translation.

But its a different thing when somebody says the KJV is superior, inerrant and other bibles are false and attacks Nestlé Aland because of silly reasons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You can like the KJV because of some love for tradition, old English language or just because you are a traditional Englishman, but its similar to Germans loving their Luther Bible just because their history.

But its a different thing when somebody says the KJV is superior to others, inerrant and other bibles are false...

Not all bibles say the same thing. Many say things that are for the worse and not for the better. So one has to choose which Bible they believe is the most pure Word of God out there. For me: This is the King James Bible because I have found it to be more doctrinally pure, and more pure in regards to God’s commands. The King James does not have the devil’s name it where it does not belong unlike Modern Translations. The King James does not have a sticky connection with the Catholic Church like the Modern Translations do. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. Only those who are truth seekers and keep an open mind will be able to see such a truth.

 

[trophy33]

because I have found it to be more doctrinally pure...

But you are no authority on what is doctrinally pure. Greek manuscripts are. Thats the point of protestantism. Thats why I said you are very close to RCC in your reasoning.

If its not found in Greek manuscripts, it does not belong to the Bible, but to some Christian book about theology.

 

[robycop3]

I never stated otherwise. But it’s not the Catholic Latin Vulgate.
What you also fail to understand is that all Modern Translations can be traced back to Rome.

The Vulgate is not a very good version, RC or not. But it was better than nothing. And I completely disagree with your "came from Rome". you have no evidence to support this.

With the exception of possibly the book of Job, it could be that there was no Scripture before Moses. If there was the book of Job before Moses, that would have been the only Scripture in existence (if such were the case). But even the book of Job was not like the five Books of Moses (Which was a lot of Scripture). From that point on after Moses, lots more Scripture had come, as well. But does that mean that just because there may have been a time where no Scripture existed that it regulates the Bible that we have today as not being as important? No. Noah was told to build an Ark. But are we Christians told to build an Ark? No. Those instructions were for Noah. So we have to understand what our instructions are and take them seriously. But it is pretty amazing that God has moved with the times. Most people really did not have a full and complete Bible to own in their home in the late 1400’s.

A hand-written copy of the Bible would have cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars in the 15th century (late 1400’s). A printed Bible during the Reformation (1500’s), on the other hand, cost two or three weeks’ wages for a skilled worker. Thus, the middle class in the Reformation had, for the first time in history, the opportunity to own, and thus to read, a personal Bible.

For hundreds of years before the time of Reformation with the spread of Bibles going out, believers most likely would have to accept whatever copied scrolls they could get their hands on and I doubt all believers had the entire collection of what we have with the Holy Bible. So the Bible was not something one could be intimately owned for all before the Reformation. While I am not a Reformer who adheres to Martin Luther, or John Calvin, I do recognize that the Bible came out of their time and had an impact on many people in a positive way (Despite the Reformers). For God’s Word in a new way like never before was going out to the people or the common and it would forever change the face of history.

Many died for their faith by standing by what little fragments of God’s Word that they had.

The ultimate climax of the printing revolution is that today anyone can read the Bible in almost any language, essentially for free because of digital reproduction. So we take for granted the Word of God. It’s on our phones, tablets, computers, Echo dots, etc.; But do people cherish the Word of God like they did back then? I see many today just want to pick what parts of the Bible they like and discard the rest. I see many today say we really do not need to make the Bible our one and only final Word of authority on matters of the faith. Many have died for the book that is God’s Holy Word. But do many of us care to read it or study it? Do we care to truly make God known to us by His Word?

The Holy Bible is God’s instructions for us today.
We need to heed the Word as it exists today.
For God wants us to draw close to Him by His Word (i.e. the Holy Bible - >
Which is an amazing work of God).


Side Note:

Oh, and I never stated that common folk were able to buy the 1611 right away. But we know by the time of the explorers in coming to America, and the leading up to America being established as an independent nation from the British, the King James Bible was available to common families.


Source used for two short paragraphs in this post:
How reading the Bible changed in the early 16th century during the Reformation

The availability of Bibles was prophesied by two concepts. First, Jesus said the Gospel would be preached to all peoples & nations. And it takes translations of Scripture into those languages to make that possible. And Daniel was told by Gabriel that in the last days, travel & knowledge would greatly increase. that increase in knowledge necessarily includes knowledge of God's word.

And the Model T became "America's car" because it was both a good car and was affordable.Most other cars were outta reach financially for most Amewricans, so they stuck to horses til the T came out. It was responsible for the travel revolution in America, & the building of a kazillion roads.

But, as time passed, tech made better cars which were more-suited for paved roads than the T was, and so they supplanted it. Same for the KJV. It was once the "go-to" English Bible version, but it was left behind by the language & better translations. I won't trade my new Fusion for a Model T, and I won't trade my modern Bibles for a KJV. (I DO own several KJVs, including a Cambridge Edition.)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But you are no authority on what is doctrinally pure. Greek manuscripts are.

The authority is the evidence itself. The evidence stands all on it’s own with or without me.
As for the Greek manuscripts: Which ones? They do not all say the same thing. Most Modern Translations are based on the Critical Text (Which is in part - Catholic in origin). Erasmus was not the sole creator of the KJB. The 47 translators used his work (this is true), but they used other manuscripts, as well. Erasmus was also not a 100% loyalist to the Catholic Church, either. He disagreed on many things within the Catholic Church. Erasmus fought with the pen and not with the sword.

 

[trophy33]

Protestantism - "we will correct our theology based upon what is in Greek manuscripts"
Catholicism and KJVO - "we like our traditional theology and we want our Bible to support it, such Bible is the best Bible."

 

[trophy33]

The authority is the evidence itself. The evidence stands all on it’s own with or without me.
As for the Greek manuscripts: Which ones? They do not all say the same thing. Most Modern Translations are based on the Critical Text (Which is in part - Catholic in origin). Erasmus was not the sole creator of the KJB. The 47 translators used his work (this is true), but they used other manuscripts, as well. Erasmus was also not a 100% loyalist to the Catholic Church, either. He disagreed on many things within the Catholic Church. Erasmus fought with the pen and not with the sword.

Again, you are shooting into your own leg. If you want to say Erasmus was not 100% (maybe just 95%? 90?) Catholic and its enough for you, then you cannot attack Nestlé-Aland because the committee is 30% catholic.


Simply stop making such useless arguments, its of no help for your case.

KJV translators did not have any manuscripts, England was quite an isolated island, the center of education was in continental central Europe. What the KJV translators used - several Erasmus editions. Thats all.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I have not said that the King James is perfect, but I still look up some things in the greek and hebrew and some other versions. As I have already said the NIV is not one of them.

 

[robycop3]

Not all bibles say the same thing. Many say things that are for the worse and not for the better.

How do you KNOW, especially if the translation is more-accurate?
In Acts 12:4, is "passover" better than "Easter"
In 1 Tim. 6:10, is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" better than the KJV rendition, especially since it's a MORE-ACCURATE translation?
In Ex. 20:13, is "You shall not MURDER" better than "Thou shalt not KILL"?

So one has to choose which Bible they believe is the most pure Word of God out there. For me: This is the King James Bible because I have found it to be more doctrinally pure, and more pure in regards to God’s commands.

Even when newer versions are more-accurately translated?

The King James does not have the devil’s name it where it does not belong unlike Modern Translations. The King James does not have a sticky connection with the Catholic Church like the Modern Translations do. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. Only those who are truth seekers and keep an open mind will be able to see such a truth.

If you had an open mind, you'd relegate the KJV to the trophy case with other good versions of the past, and use a modern edition or editions that are more-accurately translated & in OUR English.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Vulgate is not a very good version, RC or not. But it was better than nothing. And I completely disagree with your "came from Rome". you have no evidence to support this.

Before I publish the quote, it is important to know that one of the Editors which worked on both the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text and the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies Greek Text was a man named Carlo Martini who was a Jesuit Cardinal.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.”​

“This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century long Nestle Tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes.”​

If you take a look at what is in bold print you will plainly see that they hide nothing. The Greek text behind the modern versions are under the supervision of the Vatican. All modern versions use these Greek texts which means that what you have in your Bible and what is omitted is decided by the Roman Catholic Church. This is why the modern versions are very Vatican friendly and why they agree with the Roman Catholic versions. You can reject what is written but you cannot make the truth go away because anyone can check out what I have re-typed from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.

The availability of Bibles was prophesied by two concepts. First, Jesus said the Gospel would be preached to all peoples & nations. And it takes translations of Scripture into those languages to make that possible. And Daniel was told by Gabriel that in the last days, travel & knowledge would greatly increase. that increase in knowledge necessarily includes knowledge of God's word.

And the Model T became "America's car" because it was both a good car and was affordable.Most other cars were outta reach financially for most Amewricans, so they stuck to horses til the T came out. It was responsible for the travel revolution in America, & the building of a kazillion roads.

But, as time passed, tech made better cars which were more-suited for paved roads than the T was, and so they supplanted it. Same for the KJV. It was once the "go-to" English Bible version, but it was left behind by the language & better translations. I won't trade my new Fusion for a Model T, and I won't trade my modern Bibles for a KJV. (I DO own several KJVs, including a Cambridge Edition.)

Some older cars are worth more money than new cars today and they actually run better. But again, God’s Word is not like a car. God never compares His Word to something like a horse or chariot.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How do you KNOW, especially if the translation is more-accurate?
In Acts 12:4, is "passover" better than "Easter"
In 1 Tim. 6:10, is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" better than the KJV rendition, especially since it's a MORE-ACCURATE translation?
In Ex. 20:13, is "You shall not MURDER" better than "Thou shalt not KILL"?


Even when newer versions are more-accurately translated?


If you had an open mind, you'd relegate the KJV to the trophy case with other good versions of the past, and use a modern edition or editions that are more-accurately translated & in OUR English.

You are discounting all the points I made and you are repeating the same ole arguments that have been explained already. There are also KJB apologetics on some of these verses that have refuted your points time and time again. Your other points are not even points in my opinion but they appear more like nitpicks that can be explained rationally. But what about the problems in the Modern Translations? They are too problematic to ignore - IMHO. I believe you want to see what you want to for your own reasons. For me: Your position is illogical because I would not be a believer today (most likely) if I believed there was no perfect Word of God I could trust (Because God did not have the power to preserve His own Word perfectly for me fully to understand). It would be a holey bible (full of holes), and not a Holy Bible. I don’t believe God makes mistakes in His Word. I believe God is perfect in everything He does.

 

[trophy33]

Before I publish the quote, it is important to know that one of the Editors which worked on both the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text and the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies Greek Text was a man named Carlo Martini who was a Jesuit Cardinal.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.”​

“This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century long Nestle Tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes.”​

If you take a look at what is in bold print you will plainly see that they hide nothing. The Greek text behind the modern versions are under the supervision of the Vatican. All modern versions use these Greek texts which means that what you have in your Bible and what is omitted is decided by the Roman Catholic Church. This is why the modern versions are very Vatican friendly and why they agree with the Roman Catholic versions. You can reject what is written but you cannot make the truth go away because anyone can check out what I have re-typed from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.



Some older cars are worth more money than new cars today and they actually run better. But again, God’s Word is not like a car. God never compares His Word to something like a horse or chariot.

Regardless of your biased presentation of the facts ("under the supervision of the Vatican"), give us one good reason why would the Catholic church or a Jesuit want to take the longer reading of the 1J 5:7 out of the Nestlé Aland text when they added it to Textus Receptus.

Its actually a proof they cannot /do not want to influence the result when its not supported by good manuscripts. Conclusion: NestléAland resists these tendencies better than Erasmus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I almost lost the faith because a Modern Translation type scholar wanted to point out that there was an error in my Bible. For half a second, I felt a sinking feeling, and then I stopped and said to myself that everything I knew in my transformation by God was a witness of His goodness working in my life when I accepted Christ as my Savior. I said to myself that God will one day give me the answer in His timing.

In fact, that is what happened.

Many years later I came to find an excellent apologetic or explanation that was very sound on this so called contradiction in the King James Bible. But if I believed this Modern Translation scholar, I could have lost my faith and ran after the things of this world and sin. This is why my trust is in God’s Word and not scholars. In fact, Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are the scholars of our day. Don’t fall for what they say. But I am afraid many have fallen for them already…. Hook, line, and sinker. For that… all I can do is pray and ask God to show such the truth in His timing (if they are willing to see it in this life).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Regardless of your biased presentation of the facts ("under the supervision of the Vatican"), give us one good reason why would the Catholic church or a Jesuit want to take the longer reading of the 1J 5:7 out of the Nestlé Aland text when they added it to Textus Receptus.

Its actually a proof they cannot /do not want to influence the result if its not supported by good manuscripts. Conclusion: NestléAland resists these tendencies better than Erasmus.

You can actually look it up those words from the Nestle Aland 27th edition (confirming the truth).
But will you do so? My guess is that many like yourself will not look it up or they will try to explain it away somehow. Again, one sees what they want to see for their own reasons.