The KJVO myth...

[Bible Highlighter]

I can hold several versions which are as perfect as God caused them to be.

So the answer is… no. There is no perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands today.
Therein lies the difference between us.
You have a bunch of fallible imperfect bibles that you have to sift through to figure out what is true or not true within them. That’s a full time job. I think God would want us to be busy at doing what He says vs. trying to endlessly figure out what He actually said because we don’t have a perfect Bible (according to your worldview).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Critical Text.

This constantly changing Critical Greek Text is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. They come right out and tell you this. They aren't even trying to hide it. Here is a photo of page 45 from right out of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[jamiec]

The Geneva was the first English Bible to include both chapters and verses. But the chapter divisions were introduced in the high middle ages, and the verse numbering scheme was first introduced by Stephanus for his Greek New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran

The verses are indicated - not numbered - in at least some Bibles printed before 1500. FWIW. The many mentions of Stephanus' addition of the verse numbers seem never to mention that detail.

 

[Fervent]

You can Google the different words (English to French, etc.) here to check it for yourself. Oh, and the word “easter” is based on the word “east” (Which is the direction of the rising of the sun; For the dawn is associated with the discovery of Christ being risen in the Bible). Read the full article in the link provided above to learn more. They go into great depth on this topic.

While the post as a whole is riddled with inaccuracies, this one is just outright fictitious. "Easter" originates in German, specifically with the German word for resurrection aufersterhung, which was shortened to easter over time and across languages. The KJV used that translation because there was a distinct antisemitism among the translators and passover made the Jewish origins too obvious for their tastes. It's not the only place the KJV made strides to minimize the Jewish origin of the faith.

 

[jamiec]

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

Which is a perfectly reasonable position - the Authorised Version was a Protestant version, dedicated to a king with a record of, now & again, persecuting English Catholics. The AV treated certain books held as canonical among Catholics, as less than fully canonical. Why would English Catholics favour a Protestant Bible ? English Protestants tried to prevent the circulation, in England, of the (Catholic) Reims New Testament of 1582. And today, US Evangelicals are - not unreasonably - less than enthusiastic about the New World Translation sponsored by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Catholics are far from being alone in criticising translations of the Bible, or of its parts, that they judge to be dubious. It is certainly not self-evident that such versions should be allowed to circulate unhindered, for the good of souls is at stake. To censor translations, and if need be, to forbid them, used to be regarded, by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, as not only defensible, but as a positive duty. And IMO, that is both a responsible, wise, and Christian attitude - people seem to forget that in Acts 19, practitioners of magic are described as burning their books. It is far from self-evident that absolute freedom of speech such as is often taken for granted today is either Christian, or wise, or pleasing to God. Book-burning by Evangelical Christians seems to be rather popular in the US, even today.

 

[Fervent]

We're probably getting close to the "truths" of the Bible by using The Message or the NLT than we are to the KJV.

That's swinging a little too far in the opposite direction. Some of the Greek books approach Attic Greek, so to lump the whole Bible into a single vernacular doesn't really meet the character of it. God chose men from all walks of life to compose the Bible, from the ultra educated Moses and Paul to the simple fisherman Peter and the rural shepherd Amos. The tableaux is often lost as translators seek to create a uniform character.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While the post as a whole is riddled with inaccuracies, this one is just outright fictitious. "Easter" originates in German, specifically with the German word for resurrection aufersterhung, which was shortened to easter over time and across languages. The KJV used that translation because there was a distinct antisemitism among the translators and passover made the Jewish origins too obvious for their tastes. It's not the only place the KJV made strides to minimize the Jewish origin of the faith.

I would encourage you to read the full article here:

“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4?

There is a lot of information in it, and they talk about how the word originates from the German.

 

[Fervent]

I would encourage you to read the full article here:

“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4?

There is a lot of information in it, and they talk about how the word originates from the German.

It actually doesn't explain the origins, as the Germanic origin has almost nothing to do with sunrise/dawn. It comes from the combination of two words that mean stand/rise up. That is on top of the fact that a simple examination of the context of the passage makes it clear that what is being referred to is the Jewish festival since there is a direct reference to unleavened bread, not a celebration of the resurrection. There is no reason to translate that as anything other than passover, and the distancing of the resurrection from passover is simply antisemitism creeping into the translation.

 

[jamiec]

But Guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want you to read -

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

The Index was abolished in 1966. The highlighted section seems perfectly reasonable to me. St Paul was also less than keen on the spreading of false doctrine & schism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, Psalm 12 does NOT say God's word was purified 7 times! It COMPARES His word with with silver purified 7 times, which was the standard used for the Tabernacle/temple tools.
From your KJV-Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
That little word "as" has meaning. dave knew God's words were pure the instant He spoke them.

You deny what the verse plainly says. The Lord’s word are pure words… as silver tried in a furnace… purified seven times. What was purified seven times? The words of the Lord which are pure words. You don’t believe there is a pure Bible and thus the book of God you have is almost pure. You don’t believe it’s pure. But the Bible says that the words of the Lord are pure words… purified seven times.

 

[jamiec]

Unicorn is likely a rhinoceros.

Or perhaps an aurochs. They have been extinct since 1627 - the animal is often referred to the literature of what is now Iraq, occupied much of the OT terrain, and was a particularly ferocious and formidable breed of wild bull. More info here: Aurochs - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It actually doesn't explain the origins, as the Germanic origin has almost nothing to do with sunrise/dawn. It comes from the combination of two words that mean stand/rise up. That is on top of the fact that a simple examination of the context of the passage makes it clear that what is being referred to is the Jewish festival since there is a direct reference to unleavened bread, not a celebration of the resurrection. There is no reason to translate that as anything other than passover, and the distancing of the resurrection from passover is simply antisemitism creeping into the translation.

Gerhard Kittle, Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 901-904."In Christian usage EASTER is called pascha" (page 897). "The oldest accounts of a Christian Paschal feast take us back to the apostolic period. The N.T. tells us nothing about the details, but the gaps may be filled in from accounts of the Quartodecimans, since their EASTER, as we now know, was a direct continuation of that of the primitive Church." (page 901). "The paschal feast thus took place in the primitive Church at the same time as the Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th Nisan...Hence the original Christian EASTER, as we have come to know and deduce it from the Quartodeciman sources, shared with the Jewish Passover not only the time and details of the rite but also the expectation of the Messiah...The first assured reference to a Sunday EASTER is in 155 A.D., but it was probably much older than this." (pages 902-903)

From the article "Should it be Passover or Easter?"

There is no doubt that paska means Easter in modern Greek. The charge, however, is that it did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4. This is not true. In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian paska and the Jewish paska. One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is paska (Passover of the Jews). We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:

John 2:13: And the Jews' passover was at hand.

John 11:55: And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand.

The fact that John writes, "Jews Pascha" indicates that there was a need to qualify the word Pascha for the immediate audience of John's Gospel. Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a Jew's Pascha and another Pascha. Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word Pascha to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It actually doesn't explain the origins, as the Germanic origin has almost nothing to do with sunrise/dawn. It comes from the combination of two words that mean stand/rise up. That is on top of the fact that a simple examination of the context of the passage makes it clear that what is being referred to is the Jewish festival since there is a direct reference to unleavened bread, not a celebration of the resurrection. There is no reason to translate that as anything other than passover, and the distancing of the resurrection from passover is simply antisemitism creeping into the translation.

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition has this to say regarding the early Christian celebration of Easter. "Although the observance of Easter was at A VERY EARLY PERIOD IN THE PRACTICE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was to be reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, AND THE EASTER FESTIVAL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED, without regard to the day of the week.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It actually doesn't explain the origins, as the Germanic origin has almost nothing to do with sunrise/dawn. It comes from the combination of two words that mean stand/rise up. That is on top of the fact that a simple examination of the context of the passage makes it clear that what is being referred to is the Jewish festival since there is a direct reference to unleavened bread, not a celebration of the resurrection. There is no reason to translate that as anything other than passover, and the distancing of the resurrection from passover is simply antisemitism creeping into the translation.

The Oxford English dictionary also lists many early English literary sources that employed the word Easter to refer to the Resurrection. Among them are the following: 890 A.D. Aelfred Baeda "le dar tide Eastrena ecelice healdan wille"; 1123 A.D. Old English Chronicles, 1200, 1250, 1300; 1389 in English Gild 'be some day fourth nythe after Easterne"; 1175 A.D. Lamb Homilies 45 "uwile sonnedei is to locan alswa Ester dei"; 1200 Trin. Coll. Homily "Forte pene puresdai biforen Estrene dai"; 1398 A.D. Trevira Barth "Eester daye is tyme of gladnesse"; 1420, 1440, 1480 "wold not graunte unto Estre next comyng"; 1447 Bokenham "On Esterne day next folwyng; 1517 A.D. Torkington - Pilgrimage - "He sawe...Criste rysen upon Estern Day"; 1593 Hooker Eccl. Pol. "keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Jews kept theirs";

Words can acquire new meanings with changing circumstances and be applied in new ways. When you turned on your computer, you used your "mouse". Some argue the word pascha does not mean Easter in Greek but any modern Greek dictionary will tell you the way to say Easter is Pascha.

The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word "passover" BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ and then "Easter" the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts AFTER His resurrection.

Source:
https://brandplucked.webs.com/easter.htm

 

[Fervent]

Gerhard Kittle, Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 901-904."In Christian usage EASTER is called pascha" (page 897). "The oldest accounts of a Christian Paschal feast take us back to the apostolic period. The N.T. tells us nothing about the details, but the gaps may be filled in from accounts of the Quartodecimans, since their EASTER, as we now know, was a direct continuation of that of the primitive Church." (page 901). "The paschal feast thus took place in the primitive Church at the same time as the Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th Nisan...Hence the original Christian EASTER, as we have come to know and deduce it from the Quartodeciman sources, shared with the Jewish Passover not only the time and details of the rite but also the expectation of the Messiah...The first assured reference to a Sunday EASTER is in 155 A.D., but it was probably much older than this." (pages 902-903)

From the article "Should it be Passover or Easter?"

There is no doubt that paska means Easter in modern Greek. The charge, however, is that it did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4. This is not true. In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian paska and the Jewish paska. One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is paska (Passover of the Jews). We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:

John 2:13: And the Jews' passover was at hand.

John 11:55: And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand.

The fact that John writes, "Jews Pascha" indicates that there was a need to qualify the word Pascha for the immediate audience of John's Gospel. Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a Jew's Pascha and another Pascha. Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word Pascha to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

That's not actually the charge at all, it is that the usage of the term "Easter" is anachronistic since the festival that is being referred to is the Jewish passover not a celebration of the resurrection. The referent in the passage, through an examination of the context, is very clearly the Jewish festival both because it was Peter's captors who were concerned with celebrating it, and they would not have been celebrating the resurrection. So to use the word that refers to the celebration of the resurrection doesn't make sense of the context of the passage. Simply because there was some interchangeability between pascha and easter is, in fact, largely irrelevant to the question at hand and discussing it does little but obfuscate the core issues.

 

[trophy33]

Of course not. Don't be silly.

Your reasoning is silly, then.

None of us were there when they were written, and we have no idea who wrote most of them where or when. We don't know their sources. So, we have no reason to pronounce them corrupt or errant.

Again, oranges and apples.

 

[trophy33]

Scholars say they were very late. But Jesus said beware of the scribes. So is their intel correct? I don’t know. I don’t have a time machine. But even if this was the case, truth is not determined by time or an age of something. If a person had a pagan religious document dated before the birth of Christ, it does not mean it is true just because it is older. Older does not always mean better. Jesus said, “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.” (Luke 5:29). Granted, I know that Jesus was primarily saying this in regards to His New Covenant teachings that was to eventually replace the Old Covenant ways, but this verse can be universally applied in this case, as well. Everyone wants the old way, but God had moved with the times by preserving His Word and people just don’t believe it.

Again - source for the claim that there were 47 translators and what sources they used?

 

[trophy33]

King James' desire was for an authorized Bible. Authorized by whom? Why?

His purpose was to create an "official" translation which defined his idea of the Protestant doctrine. Once it met his criteria it was authorized as the "official" Bible, authorized by the King, no less.

Is there a problem with this? The short answer: ask the Puritans who fled to this continent with their Geneva translations! The long answer: King James was a secular monarch who wanted to create an "official" translation so that he could control the religion of his subjects. His doctrine was truth, right?

The KJV is one of many translations, written in a language that is difficult to accurately understand, to a culture that no longer exists. Personally, I believe that many people like the KJV because they think it's the way God would communicate (beautiful prose that nobody on Earth speaks), forgetting of course that when God came to Earth He spoke Aramaic, a simple "people's language". We're probably getting close to the "truths" of the Bible by using The Message or the NLT than we are to the KJV.

Personally, while I consider the NIV the best of the modern translations, I read the NET most often because it's similar but has copious translators' notes.

Yes, the English king James was not loved by many, historically. Not even by English protestants.

 

[trophy33]

Most of all your Modern Bibles comes from the Critical Text.

From the critial text of Nestlé Aland. Not from the critical text of Erasmus like reformation translations.

This constantly changing Critical Greek Text

"The reformed church is constantly reforming itself".

is under the direct supervision of the Vatican.

And under the direct "supervision" of protestants and under the direct "supervision" of orthodox and under the direct "supervision" of universities. The committee is composed of various Christian branches on purpose, to eliminate bias.

Come on, this "Vatican" fear mongering is silly from somebody who reads the KJV created by anglicanism on the basis of the text created by a catholic priest and authorized by a politician.

This ....text...is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. They come right out and tell you this.

Its funny, but you, in your bias, do not understand what the text says. It does not say that the text is made under the Vatican supervision. I am not a native English speaker and I can understand that.

Try to read it several times.