The KJVO myth...

[1Reformedman]

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.

Guess away.

 

[Albion]

Actually, I just now verified my guess by looking back through the posts. Don't be upset; it is something that we all are subject to doing when we come upon an intereswting thread that is already underway.

 

[Kate30]

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

Dqhall with the Codex Sinaiticus David Daniels does make the claim that the Codex Sinaiticus cannot be that old simply because many of the leafs vary in colour some actually being White. There has always been sources challenging the authenticity of Count Tischendorf discovery of the manuscripts even prior to what has been researched and claimed in Mr Daniels book to how credible they were really were But what I’m more interested in for now is the colour variations and how this could have occurred. As this was duly noted from witness accounts not long after their original discovery. .

 

[dqhall]

View attachment 268910
Dqhall with the Codex Sinaiticus David Daniels does make the claim that the Codex Sinaiticus cannot be that old simply because many of the leafs vary in colour some actually being White. There has always been sources challenging the authenticity of Count Tischendorf discovery of the manuscripts even prior to what has been researched and claimed in Mr Daniels book to how credible they were really were But what I’m more interested in for now is the colour variations and how this could have occurred. As this was duly noted from witness accounts not long after their original discovery. .

From what I read someone partially erased the old ink and wrote over pages of the original manuscript. It is called a palimpsest. There are other old Greek Bible manuscripts that may be presented as evidence. Not that one could conclude the KJV is perfect and others are errant. To reach such a hypothesis, one would need to ignore over 50 years of Dead Sea Scroll scholarship.

 

[Jipsah]

I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

My wife's aunt is persuaded that Korean is the world's first language, and therefore the language of God. She won't read any English translation, insisting that the only accurate version of the Bible is Korean

 

[Der Alte]

My wife's aunt is persuaded that Korean is the world's first language, and therefore the language of God. She won't read any English translation, insisting that the only accurate version of the Bible is Korean

아내처럼 들리네 Me too.

 

[David Kent]

The KJV is a masterpiece of high English literature, but heavily biased towards protestant puritan doctrine. Prime example is the translation of anything that moves as 'hell' (ie Sheol, Hades, Gehenna). It has this picture of God generally, which tends to carnal, though with a lofty sovereignty. Generally, the KJV is more a product of its time, I would suggest, something of an artifact of Anglicanism.

Actually the Puritans were excluded from the translation by the Anglicans

 

[David Kent]

Now, despite as a Freedom Reader, my stance against the KJVO myth, (not the KJV) I don't go along with all the anti-KJVO hype.

For instance, there's the singing turtles of Job. In the English of that time, "turtle" was also slang for "turtledove" as well as a shelled reptile, depending on context. Unicorns? The meaning of the Hebrew word "rheem", rendered 'unicorn' in the KJV, is uncertain, except for being a large, fierce herbivore. Unicorns are on KJ,s coat-of-arms, and now on Britain's royal coat-of-arms, as are lions. The AV makers had no reason to not believe they existed. A cockatrice was any poisonous snake, not just the mythical 2-legged dragon, while a satyr was simply untranslated Hebrew, meaning "billy goat", the animal, not just the Greek god Pan, or other. In fact, the Greek satyr came from the much-older Hebrew word, as the mythical Greek satyrs were half-man, half-goat.

The scripture uses turtledove when it means it, pigeon when it means pigeon see Luke 2:24 I have no doubt when it says Turtle it means Turtle.

 

[createdtoworship]

In the time you took to ask that one question in 46 parts, interlaced with various accusations and redundancies, you could have counted half the verses in the Bible. Just do it brother.

either answer the question fully, or I will let this comment stream die.

 

[createdtoworship]

The King James Version is from the 17th century. Since then the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered at St. Catherine’s in the Sinai desert during the 19th century. It is a Greek Bible from the fourth century. Sinaiticus is one of the three oldest Bibles ever found. Some describe it as the oldest Bible.

In 1945 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran near the Dead Sea. They are from the first century or earlier. These scrolls were hidden during the 66-70 AD war. The scrolls are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. They were written on papyrus and parchment (animal skin).

The KJV translators had no knowledge of these manuscripts. The NIV translators used them. I liked to read the NIV Bible, but quoted from a Bible that is not copyrighted.

Well it's not really.
The thread is about the false statement that ONLY the KJV is inspired, true and the word of God. Those who make this claim, that the KJV is the only true Bible, are saying that therefore all the other translations of the Bible are false/wrong/misleading.
It seems that you would agree with that, and what's more you claim to have evidence.

If there was indeed evidence that EVERY Bible apart from the KJV was false/wrong/fraudulent/corrupt, then, by default, it would prove the claim that only the KJV is correct.



WERE the manuscripts "tampered with", or were they in fact more accurate translations from the Greek?

I've seen posts on these forums that compare KJV texts with those text in other translations, and the conclusion is always, "look how that verse in the newer translation differs from the KJV; it obviously proves that the newer translation is at fault."
No it doesn't.
The person who writes these things is invariably coming from the position of "the KJV ONLY is true". Therefore, they will not admit that the KJV could ever be wrong, mistranslated or that other more accurate translations have been made since. Therefore, ANYTHING that differs from the, apparently perfect, KJV HAS to be wrong.
That is the wrong way to look at it - what do the KJV and newer Bibles say compared to the Greek? Could it be that the KJV uses language which nowadays means something else? No, say the KJVonlyists; not possible.

But let's see the Greek/Hebrew texts and how various Bibles translate them before we make any claims, or judgements.



For the same reason that he allows sin to continue.
But we are talking about the word of God which people have translated for the purpose of making it and the Gospel more accessible to others - so that unbelievers can read God's word and come to faith. I am sure that many, if not all, of the translators were Christians who believed they were guided by the Holy Spirit and doing the work for God's glory - not cult leaders trying to peddle their own, self devised, doctrines.



Jesus is truth, the Holy Spirit is truth, God's word is truth.
And God wants us o know the truth. He is not going to test or mislead us by producing false Bibles - "the truth is around here somewhere; you have to search for it."

I posted the thread you can feel free to look at the photographs of the fragments that were forged. I won't repost it here as it's both redundant and off topic....but here is the thread again...

The Codex Sinaiticus is a Fake!

if you reply to that thread, and tag me I would love to update my notes on this particular subject, I haven't yet due to time constrains. But like I said there are probably 20 veins of evidence into why the sinaiticus (and vaticanus for that matter), were both forged and funded by the vatican to promote their agenda to get away from the authorized version of the day. There is motive for doing the forgery, and there is sufficient evidence as well. I won't post it here out of redundancy, but I have invested some time into that thread, feel free to reawaken the thread. I would love that..... (by the way most of the evidence is still in my notes, that thread is the best I could find, but it's lacking in actual photographs and is missing much of the evidence, I recommend a book called "the sinaiticus forgery by cooper"

 

[Blade]

Just asking.. so what version is closest to the org Hebrew and Greek? I used a word "closest". I knew a man that only read it. Had so much power of God.. wow. So..its the only one you use? Praise GOD!

 

[Call me Nic]

The KJVO myth is false; it has no Scriptural support.

The KJV is not in OUR English now. it's a "Model T" version.

And it's less-accurate than many newer versions.

That's your opinion, sir.

I find it to be much more accurate than every contemporary Bible I've read, and reliable on the meaty doctrines of the faith.

There's a reason why it's been around for 400 years and continues to bear fruit getting people saved.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Indeed, these are good.

On that note, doesn’t it just break your heart that there is no surviving intact copy of Origen’s Hexapla or most of the component versions of the Old Testament, like the Edition of Symacchus? Of all the works from antiquity to be lost, why that one? Why? Especially given that we have such epic page turners as Thucydides History of the Pelopenesian War.

Now, I love Gaius Julius Caesar as much as Marc Antony, but I am glad we have his account of the War in Gaul, with its thrilling account of subterfuge by the sneaky Helveti and the dastardly charioteering of the Britons which caused him to withdraw from England, but honestly, given the choice, I would take the Hexapla any day.

(The Hexapla for those of you who don’t know had the six various editions of the Old Testament that were intact in the Third Century AD, in six parallel columns, so it was the first real “Parallel Bible.”)

 

[The Liturgist]

Just asking.. so what version is closest to the org Hebrew and Greek? I used a word "closest". I knew a man that only read it. Had so much power of God.. wow. So..its the only one you use? Praise GOD!

I am going to go out on a limb and say the original restored text of Jerome’s Vulgate, because he had access to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament far older than anything we now have, and also, to Origen’s Hexapla for the Old Testament, and he was unbiased as a translator, translating every book he was commanded to, and not just those he felt were authentic or worthy of use.

 

[Albion]

Actually the Puritans were excluded from the translation by the Anglicans

As I read that post, it seemed to me that the post you are answering was saying that the KJV was slanted in the direction of Puritan beliefs, not that the Puritans themselves were negotiating it. However, I don't think even this would be accurate to say, either.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just asking.. so what version is closest to the org Hebrew and Greek? I used a word "closest". I knew a man that only read it. Had so much power of God.. wow. So..its the only one you use? Praise GOD!

Check this thread out, I have a few other threads too on this but try thus one first:

Which Bible manuscript did the church fathers use? KJV or NIV or ESV?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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

That's my point, I say you'd need credible sources proving they are authentic.

 

[Oseas]

I notice one "Bible Highlighter" tried to defend the KJVO myth with some 40-yr. old stuff that's been long-refuted.

Does he, or any other KJVO have anything new ? Far as I'm concerned, the KJVO myth is just that-a MAN-MADE MYTH -& is phony as a Ford Corvette!

One question for KJVOs-

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH ?
Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

I'm asking RESPECTFULLY; no flaming or word war intended. I just want to see some ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.

The inclusion of the name or more precisely the nickname Jehovah in the Scriptures is also a myth, however it is embedded in the Bible and it is believed (not by me) as if that name or nickname existed. It's a lie.

Although written in the Bible, I am not fooled by this, so your arguments about KJV translation are irrelevant also to those who have the Spirit of God.

But I am sure that the content of God's righteous judgments in all translations have no shadow of variation, even the ones you refute, so fear God who has Power to cast your body and soul into hell as says the Word of God. Now, now, the Word is God, so ... take care.
There really will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

either answer the question fully, or I will let this comment stream die.

What an ultimatum! Which question?

 

[JSRG]

(in conclusion: I posted this on facebook and did not say that it only worked with KJV and everyone reposted it as a miracle of God, then here when I mention it only works with KJV everyone is like, well did you fact check it? I was just wondering if you can see that when you saw it last few weeks on social media and you reposted it as a miracle, why that when I say it only works with the KJV that now you want more solid evidence?" I thought it is pretty much solid evidence as it sits, but maybe that is just me. And apparent you did too, last week.

Were any of the people here the same ones on Facebook praising it as a miracle? If not, statements like "Apparent (sic) you did too, last week" are meaningless, because people here didn't think so last week. For the record, I wouldn't, if someone posted it without the KJV note, have declared it a miracle or anything like that. I would have thought "huh, that's a bit interesting" and that would be it.

But I notice you ignored my point that even if Psalm 118:8 being the central verse was some kind of amazing miracle that proved special inspiration for the Bibles that have it as their central verse, it doesn't work for the KJV, and in fact disproves the KJV as being special. The KJV included the deuterocanon, which changes the central verse and thus the middle verse of the KJV is not Psalm 118:8.

In fact, that's what I've noticed you doing over and over. You'll make an argument, people will point out flaws in it, and then you'll simply repeat the argument as if no one pointed out those errors! Indeed, you keep linking over to this older thread of yours as if it proves the Sinaiticus is a fake... even though in that very topic people took apart your arguments quite thoroughly, particularly NT Scholar (whose posts start here). Actually, looking through that topic, I see the same behavior of you making an argument, people pointing out what's wrong, and then you simply repeat the argument (in some cases outright copy/pasting what you posted before) without addressing the points raised against it.