The KJVO myth...

myst33 said:

You can either study ancient genealogies and their purpose or not, thats on you.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with studying genealogies and has everything to do with UNQUALIFIED people accusing the bible of being wrong.

Bob_1000 said:

This has nothing to do with studying genealogies and has everything to do with UNQUALIFIED people accusing the bible of being wrong.

Click to expand...

As I said, I would choose much simpler and more obvious errors, if I would see a point in doing that.

But factical differences between Gospels would be also some of them.

myst33 said:

As I said, I would choose much simpler and more obvious errors, if I would see a point in doing that.

But factical differences between Gospels would be also some of them.

Click to expand...

I would say that probably 99.99% of people from your camp would call the genealogies an error and the reason they do is because they have ZERO FAITH in the written word that we have today.

Fervent said:

Your provision of dictionaries and an encyclopedia don't speak to what I have been arguing, since it is about which the context tells us is being celebrated not the appropriateness of "pascha" being translated as easter in general. The context is clearly referring to Jews celebrating a Jewish festival, not the resurrection.

Click to expand...

I see it as one of two possibilities.

Possibility #1.

Prior to William Tyndale (1494–1536), the words “passover” and “easter” were not found in the Bible. Most translations left them untranslated. For instance, John Wycliffe (1320-1384) translates Lev. 23:5 as “In the firste monethe, in the fourtenthe dai of the monethe, at euentid, is pask of the Lord;” Here the Hebrew Pecach is left basically untranslated. Again, Wycliffe translates Num 9:2 as “and seide, The sones of Israel make pask in his tyme.” In the New Testament, Wycliffe translated the Greek pascha as pask. For example, Matt. 26:2 is translated “Ye witen, that aftir twei daies pask schal be maad, and mannus sone schal be bitakun to be crucified.”

But when Tyndale translated the New Testament, which he did before he translated the Old Testament, he introduced the term “easter.” His translation of Matt. 26:2, for instance, is:”Ye knowe that after ii. dayes shalbe ester and the sonne of man shalbe delyvered to be crucified.” Here, Tyndale translates pascha as ester, or easter. Tyndale translates Mark 14:14 as “And whither soever he goeth in saye ye to ye good man of ye housse: the master axeth where is the geest chambre where I shall eate ye ester lambe with my disciples.” Here, pascha is translated “ester lambe,” or Easter Lamb. When he later translated the Old Testament, he coined the term “passover.”

Was Tyndale in error? Did he not know that these passages referred to the Jewish feast ordained by God under the Mosaic Law? Did he mistakenly think this was a ceremony to a pagan goddess? Or did he believe the Jews were celebrating a “Christian feast” before Christ even died and rose again? The reader will understand that these questions are rhetorical and that Tyndale knew he was referring to the Jewish feast of Passover. The point is this, during Tyndale’s day, the term “easter” was used for the Jewish feast of Passover.

Tyndale was not alone in this. For instance, Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) translated Mark 14:14 into German as “und wo er eingeht, da sprechet zu dem Hauswirt: Der Meister läßt dir sagen: Wo ist das Gasthaus, darin ich das Osterlamm esse mit meinen Jüngern?” Notice that the Greek pascha is translated as “Osterlamm,” or “ester lambe” as Tyndale translated it, or Easter Lamb in modern English. He translated Matthew 26:2 as “Ihr wisset, daß nach zwei Tagen Ostern wird; und des Menschen Sohn wird überantwortet werden, daß er gekreuzigt werde.” Again, notice that “Ostern” translates the Greek pascha.

The Bishop’s Bible of 1568, against which the King James Version was translated, uses the term “easter. In John 11:55 the Bishop’s Bible reads “And the Iewes Easter was nye at hande, and many went out of the countrey vp to Hierusale before the Easter, to purifie them selues.” Notice that the Greek pascha is translated “Easter” but also notice it is the “Jews Easter,” an obvious reference to the Passover. Again, the Bishop’s Bible uses Easter in Acts 12:4, the very verse we are now considering. The Great Bible uses the term easter multiple times in the New Testament and even in the Old Testament passage of Ezek. 45:21. “Upon the .xiiij. daye of the fyrst moneth, ye shall kepe easter. Seuen dayes shall the feate contynue, wherin there shall no sowre ner leuened breed be eaten.” Again, the Hebrew word for Passover is translated easter.

The point is to show that the word “easter” was used to translate the word for passover and stood for the concept of passover during this period of time when these great, historical Bibles were being translated. Because that is the case, the King James version cannot successfully be charged with mistranslating pascha in Acts 12:4 when it does the same. Those who make such a claim do not understand the history behind the translation or the origin of the word easter.

Furthermore, even if the name easter had it’s origin in the name of this goddess Eostre, this does not mean that translating the word for the passover by that name was in error because by the time the King James Version had been translated it had come to mean that to the translators. The time of year when the Passover occurred was known by them as Eosturmonath or Easter Month. Even today we call the Lord’s Day, the day on which the Lord arose from the dead, “Sunday.” Many congregations will have in their bulletins the times of the “Sunday services” but no one claims that this is wrong because the name “Sunday” was derived from the worship of the sun.

Even in the Bede quote above he let’s us know that Easter was equated with Passover. He states, “Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance.” The “Paschal season” is a reference to the time when the Passover was observed, which was also the time, of course, when our Lord arose from the dead. By this time errors had crept in with regard to observing the resurrection of Christ, which he calls the “new rite,” but his quote identifies the Passover with the term easter.

The term easter in Acts 12:4 is not in error. It may be an outdated translation today, and it may have even been somewhat dated when the King James version was translated, but it is not in error. We are looking at the verse from the standpoint of the 21st century when we should be looking at it from the standpoint of the 17th century. If we do that, the problem clears up.

No one should take from this article that I endorse the observance of Easter as a religious holy day. In our day, Easter has come to mean something entirely different than when it was used in the King James Bible. In the early Bibles the term easter was used to refer to the passover. As the church began to fall away from the faith, and the doctrine corrupted, events like “All Hallows Eve,” “Christ’s Mass,” and “Easter” were added to the pure faith. But the charge that the King James translators erred in Acts 12:4 with easter is not accurate. In fact, the King James translators removed the other references to easter that were found in the previous Bibles, perhaps because the term easter was no longer being used the way it had been originally.

One final thought, contrary to claims of grievous error, I know of no one who has been lost because of the word easter in the King James Bible. However, I know of many who are lost because of the errors of modern translations. I do not mind an honest discussion of the translations of words, and I do not claim to be any kind of scholar, but it does bother me when people blindly and enthusiastically attribute error to the King James Bible, which has been used down through the centuries to combat error and promote the Lord’s church. I have yet to see any translation that measures up in every way to the beauty, majesty and accuracy of the King James version.

Source:
What about Easter in Acts 12:4?
(Please keep in mind that I agree with the portion of the article I quoted. It does not mean I agree with this particular church. In fact, I do not agree with their view of Soteriology. But that does not mean that they cannot be correct on certain things like on this topic).


Possibility #2.

We learn that Polycarp and another disciple discussed on which day they should celebrate the Lord’s resurrection. They discussed on whether this should be celebrated on the Jewish passover or not. Seeing the Jews were steeped in Jewish traditions of their old ways (See: Acts of the Apostles 21), it was hard for them let the old ways go. So the early Jewish Christians most likely celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on the day of the passover because Jesus is our Passover Lamb. As time went on, and the church matured, they recognized that we are not under the 613 Laws of Moses, but we are under the Law of Christ (2 Corinthians 9:21). So the church chose the word to represent passover and yet also have a newer and diverse meaning that is tied in with how Christians celebrate the passover along with His resurrection. For Christ is our Passover Lamb, and He is risen (just as the sun has risen in the East).


Side Note:

Anyways, speaking of Polycarp, you may be interested in checking out this Christian film here:

Bob_1000 said:

I would say that probably 99.99% of people from your camp would call the genealogies an error and the reason they do is because they have ZERO FAITH in the written word that we have today.

Click to expand...

I know nobody "from my camp" who would come with genealogies to be the first error they can think of. Its a known fact among educated Christians that ancient genealogies were symbolic or even mythical so to call it "error" would be a misunderstanding of what it is.

I have heard some atheists to point out genealogies as a proof of biblical errors, but they are not "my camp". They just misunderstood the genre. Its like calling Genesis an error just because its not scientific.

myst33 said:

I know nobody "from my camp" who would come with genealogies to be the first error they can think of. Its a known fact among educated Christians that ancient genealogies were symbolic or even mythical so to call it "error" would be a misunderstanding of what it is.

I have heard some atheists to point out genealogies as a proof of biblical errors, but they are not "my camp". They just misunderstood the genre. Its like calling Genesis an error just because its not scientific.

Click to expand...

So when you don't understand something you write it off as "mythical" or "symbolic". That's not a good practice.

Bob_1000 said:

So when you don't understand something you write it off as "mythical" or "symbolic". That's not a good practice.

Click to expand...

To know how the genealogies were used in ancient times is actually understanding. If you read it as a technical genetical chain of people, you are the one who is mistaken. And you are in the same group as atheists who read just the surface of the Bible.

myst33 said:

To know how the genealogies were used in ancient times is actually understanding. If you read it as a technical genetical chain of people, you are the one who is mistaken.

Click to expand...

There's nothing mystical or symbolic about the genealogies in the bible.... they are 100% accurate genealogies.

robycop3 said:

Depending on where your wife learned English, the KJV may give her some problems. I had a neighbor, a Korean doctor, who, when he moved here, had just finished a schoolbook English course. He was a new Christian, & asked me if he could borrow a Bible until his Korean translation arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. He came by 2 days later, asking me about "suffer little children", so I explained the archaic expression to him, took back the KJV & gave him a NASV to use.

The KJV is frozen in time; GOD IS NOT! He keeps His word in up-to-date translations as He causes/allows the languages to change. The KJV is part of the past & should be relegated to the trophy case.

Click to expand...

I am not one of those KJB only folks who is going to stretch the truth and tell a person that the KJB is always easy to read. It’s not. I tell my wife and all people to read the King James Bible side by side next to Modern Translation to help update the archaic 1600’s English and or to use a Webster’s dictionary. I tell her because the doctrine is more pure than that of Modern Translations and I have given her many examples of this. Also Rome is tied to Modern Translations, as well. So unless your Catholic, go ahead and rely on Modern Translations as your subtly ever changing authority. For Modern Translations are always under construction. Your Modern Translation you have now may be out of date in a couple of years from now.

Bob_1000 said:

There's nothing mystical or symbolic about the genealogies in the bible.... they are 100% accurate genealogies.

Click to expand...

I am not surprised by your view. I would not expect an admission that bible contains the same literary devices that were common in the time it was being written, from a KJVO proponent.

A KJVO proponent expects everything to be literal and scientific, written in the style of the modern era. Genesis is like a documentary on HBO, the flood is from the point of view of the plantery orbit and genealogies are like ours. Right?

myst33 said:

This would work if people were acting rationally.

But KJVO people are attached to the KJV emotionally. So its of no use to post the KJV errors, they already believe the KJV is perfect so they will invent some explanation. And even a ridiculous one will sound solid to them.

For example, one of them (I do not remember which one, I think it was Bible Highlighter) wrote that he almost lost faith when he found some error in the Bible. So these people must defend their "perfect" Bible at any cost, its like the life and death question to them.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that KJVO people somehow believe either or both of two myths...

1) God somehow communicates, not in our own, modern language, but in an archaic version of Englyshe that only a few either understand what is said or (worse) interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean.

2) Instead of being a plain-spoken carpenter who spoke Aramaic -- the common language of the people -- the Lord spoke in some "holy" dialect which, while sounding pious and religious, was incomprehensible to the hearers. Jesus didn't speak in some weird, archaic dialect that seemed strange to those who heard it.

It's time to put the KJVO myth to rest. There are many excellent translations in our normal, conventional English that give meaning and clarity to Scripture, far more so than one in the archaic (dead) language of a society that no longer exists.

pescador said:

I'm of the opinion that KJVO people somehow believe either or both of two myths...

1) God somehow communicates, not in our own, modern language, but in an archaic version of Englyshe that only a few either understand what is said or (worse) interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean.

2) Instead of being a plain-spoken carpenter who spoke Aramaic -- the common language of the people -- the Lord spoke in some "holy" dialect which, while sounding pious and religious, was incomprehensible to the hearers. Jesus didn't speak in some weird, archaic dialect that seemed strange to those who heard it.

It's time to put the KJVO myth to rest. There are many excellent translations in our normal, conventional English that give meaning and clarity to Scripture, far more so than one in the archaic (dead) language of a society that no longer exists.

Click to expand...

I think they are very uncertain people who have a trouble finding faith in multiple sources.

They have only one source - the Bible - and that makes them fear that if the Bible is errant, God does not exist or something like that.

Its like a bet on only one thread instead on the whole web of threads.

Bible Highlighter said:

Yes, I believe in the eternal Trinity, and I defended against Arianism (or Anti-Trinitarianism) many times.

Click to expand...

I know; I never said otherwise.

Bible Highlighter said:

So I am 100% aware of Genesis and other verses in the OT about how God refers to Himself in the plural form. I am aware of Scripture that says God is one.

Click to expand...

Good.

Bible Highlighter said:

But there are believers out there who believe some wrong things about the nature of God.

Click to expand...

Yes, no doubt; but that wasn't the point.
You said that there is only one verse that teaches the Trinity, which is in the KJV, and I said "it doesn't matter - it is taught all over Scripture." And I gave you a few Scripture references plus some other instances where Jesus and the Spirit are both God, yet there is only one God. That some people don't believe the verses is not an issue - there are there, in Scripture.

Bible Highlighter said:

Some believe Jesus was formed as a demi-god shortly before the creation,

Click to expand...

Yes, some do - but that is erroneous and not found in Scripture.
It doesn't alter the fact that Jesus used for himself the name that God had revealed to Moses - and the Jews knew this and tried to kill him.

Bible Highlighter said:

In either case, they can refer to the “us” as referring to Jesus and the Father and yet not include the Spirit in being a distinct person in those OT verses referring to God in the plural form.

Click to expand...

Well they need someone to teach them about the Holy Spirit then.
The Spirit was clearly present at creation. At this point in Genesis we have no idea about the Son, or living Word, of God; we are told only of God and the Spirit of God. It is in John's Gospel that we are told about the living Word who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:3 also say this.

Bible Highlighter said:

Many Christians learn of the Trinity not from their own knowledge and study of the Bible, but by a church.

Click to expand...

Maybe they do - and?

Bible Highlighter said:

Yes, it is possible that some Christians believe the Trinity by partially believing 1 John 5:7 in the KJB.

Click to expand...

And some, like me, believed in the Trinity without reading the KJV or 1 John 5:7.

Bible Highlighter said:

Yes, it’s true. The Trinity can be indirectly implied by piecing together many verses in Scripture, but it is not directly taught like in 1 John 5:7. Please take no offense, but that is what you don’t seem to understand.

Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly well - I just don't agree that it's the big deal that you seem to think that it is.
The Trinity is taught in the Bible, especially the NT. I, for one, do not need ONE verse to teach me about it or convince me that it is true. Christ's deity is a fundamental Christian doctrine. If he had not been God then it was ONLY a human being that died on the cross, and I doubt that he would have even been perfect, never mind have had the authority to die for the sins of the world.

This is before we even get on to the question of "is 1 John 5:7 in the Greek NT - was it removed by some Bibles, or added by the KJV?" (Like I said, you're not likely to consider the last point because that might dent the "perfection" of the KJV.)

Bible Highlighter said:

For no other verse in Scripture says the same thing or similar like 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible (Which is removed in Modern Translations).

Click to expand...

Like I said, that's another argument.
Show me a Greek Bible that has that verse in it and I'll consider that it was removed by other Bibles and that the KJV is correct on that point.

Bible Highlighter said:

For you cannot stand up against a JW with authority and tell him point blank in your Bible about the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Oh yes I can, and have done so.

Firstly; the NIV says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Their Bible translates this verse as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was A God". The JWs claim that their founder translated this and it is a more accurate translation of the Greek - yet it was proved in a court of law, (and no doubt evidence can be found somewhere of this) that their founder knew no Greek.
Secondly; Isaiah 43:10 says that "besides me there is no god." This verse is very important to JWs because the first part says, " 'you are my witnesses' declares Jehovah" - it is the verse from which the get their name. Yet if they bothered to read the rest of it, they would see that there is no God besides Jehovah, therefore their claim that Jesus is A god must be false.
There is also the matter of John 17:5 - Jesus said "now glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began". Jesus was with God in the beginning - exactly what John 1:2 and 1 John 1:1-2 say.
Thirdly, there are all the points that I made to you - that "God" is written in a plural form, that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy and claiming to be God, John 10:33; that the Spirit is eternal and was with God in the beginning - yet there is ONE God.
It is far easer for me to explain to, and show, a JW that God is Trinity than it is for them to prove that it doesn't exist.
All this, without the help of the KJV.

myst33 said:

I think they are very uncertain people who have a trouble finding faith in multiple sources.

They have only one source - the Bible - and that makes them fear that if the Bible is errant, God does not exist or something like that.

Click to expand...

That's a great thought! The key word is "fear"!

robycop3 said:

Sir, depending on WILL KINNEY for any KJVO intel is as depending upon Vlad Putin for honesty over cyberhacking. I have proven him wrong on more than one site, in which he either exits or bans me if he has the authority. (I know how to get by most bans if I choose.)

Click to expand...

I am trying to understand your relentless hatred for the King James Bible. Is it really worth it to attack a Bible that Christians trust? What if certain Christians lose their faith altogether by your attack against God’s Holy Word? Does God call us to continually live our lives in focus on an attack against a particular group of Christians who believe a particular Word of God? Why is that bad to you that they trust wholly in the Holy Bible? What is the end result or goal for these people if you convince them? How will they have changed in following Christ for the better by your efforts? I just don’t see anything positive coming out of your attack of the KJB at all.

You said:

You can't. The AV makers clearly knew the difference between Easter & passover, calling Easter, along with Christmas, one of the 2 holiest days of the year, & placing an "Easter-Finder" in the front ofthe AV 1611. And the early Geneva translation has "passover" in Acts 12:4. And once more, the translation must reflect LUKE'S written thoughts, not those of the translators. And Luke was plainly thinking of PASSOVER!

Click to expand...

I think you are just looking to see mistakes where none exists even if sound explanations are given. You want to see mistakes in the King James Bible. Admit it. It has nothing to do with the verses you are quoting. You are merely fishing to find anything wrong with the KJB because of your own personal reasons. Maybe a King James Only person did you wrong in the past, or maybe you had a bad experience in studying the KJB. I don’t know what that reason is, but something is influencing you on a crusade against the brethren in trusting completely in God’s Word by faith. Does a complete trust in God’s Word upset you?

You said:

I disagree because I'm right, and have proven so.

The KJV (NOT"KJB") is NOT pure, & that's been soundly PROVEN here. It's your right to use an outdated, goof-ridden version if you wish, but as for me & my house, we shall serve the LORD, using ACCURATE Bible translations in OUR language.

Click to expand...

Again, you are limited human being and you are not God. Your knowledge is limited and you can be biased by your own emotions and wrong thinking of what you want to be true. So your claims of what you think is correct is nothing more than…. Claims. You can claim whatever you like…. But the truth will be proven one day in the end by our Lord.

You said:

The KJVO myth comes from SATAN, & he uses it to create strife & dissent among Christians, & to place doubt upon several translations of God's word.

Click to expand...

I will not even say that against Christians who believe in the OAO (Original Autograph Only) position, or they are a Modern Translation Only Proponent or they are an “Anti-God-Did-Not-Preserve-His-Words-Perfectly-In-Our-World-Language-Today” Type Believer. I don’t see it as a salvation issue in most cases. But to speak evil against the Christian’s belief in having too much faith in a Bible that is the most pure when compared to other Modern Version Bibles is a real low blow in my humble opinion. What if you are wrong? You could be speaking against God’s people having a 100% trust in God’s Holy Words and calling them evil. What if you are wrong, and you had to explain to the Lord how you were calling that which is good as evil? Do you not believe good Christians cannot be made by a King James Bible? Do you honestly believe that if they switched to following a sea of Modern Bibles that they will be a better Christian in wanting to live more for Christ? Is that what you truly believe? I have heard the stories that those who hold to Modern Bibles are the ones who end up being more liberal and turning away from the faith altogether. I almost lost my faith because of what a Modern Translation scholar said. Is that what you desire for me? To lose my faith in God’s Word altogether? Because it sounds like you are trying to tear down my faith or 100% trust in God’s Word. This is why I see no good in your crusade against those who trust in the Word of God completely (i.e. the KJB).

You said:

And people such as you and the aforementionedm Mr. Kinney are in thrall to that myth, still believing it when it's been proven completely false. Your repeating of the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" several times proves your thralldom, as that false doctrine comes straight from a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST'S book. (The SDA is a known quasi/pseudo-Christian cult.) There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, a fact which automatically makes it FALSE.

Click to expand...

Guilt by association is not always true. Catholics believe in the Trinity, but that does not mean the Trinity is not true just because Catholics believe in it. So nice try. So your pointing out the SDA’s (of whom I strongly disagree with in regards to their keeping the Sabbath, etc.) is not really a valid argument against the King James Bible being the pure Word of God.

Strong in Him said:

I know; I never said otherwise.



Good.



Yes, no doubt; but that wasn't the point.
You said that there is only one verse that teaches the Trinity, which is in the KJV, and I said "it doesn't matter - it is taught all over Scripture." And I gave you a few Scripture references plus some other instances where Jesus and the Spirit are both God, yet there is only one God. That some people don't believe the verses is not an issue - there are there, in Scripture.



Yes, some do - but that is erroneous and not found in Scripture.
It doesn't alter the fact that Jesus used for himself the name that God had revealed to Moses - and the Jews knew this and tried to kill him.



Well they need someone to teach them about the Holy Spirit then.
The Spirit was clearly present at creation. At this point in Genesis we have no idea about the Son, or living Word, of God; we are told only of God and the Spirit of God. It is in John's Gospel that we are told about the living Word who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:3 also say this.



Maybe they do - and?



And some, like me, believed in the Trinity without reading the KJV or 1 John 5:7.



I understand it perfectly well - I just don't agree that it's the big deal that you seem to think that it is.
The Trinity is taught in the Bible, especially the NT. I, for one, do not need ONE verse to teach me about it or convince me that it is true. Christ's deity is a fundamental Christian doctrine. If he had not been God then it was ONLY a human being that died on the cross, and I doubt that he would have even been perfect, never mind have had the authority to die for the sins of the world.

This is before we even get on to the question of "is 1 John 5:7 in the Greek NT - was it removed by some Bibles, or added by the KJV?" (Like I said, you're not likely to consider the last point because that might dent the "perfection" of the KJV.)



Like I said, that's another argument.
Show me a Greek Bible that has that verse in it and I'll consider that it was removed by other Bibles and that the KJV is correct on that point.



Oh yes I can, and have done so.

Firstly; the NIV says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Their Bible translates this verse as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was A God". The JWs claim that their founder translated this and it is a more accurate translation of the Greek - yet it was proved in a court of law, (and no doubt evidence can be found somewhere of this) that their founder knew no Greek.
Secondly; Isaiah 43:10 says that "besides me there is no god." This verse is very important to JWs because the first part says, " 'you are my witnesses' declares Jehovah" - it is the verse from which the get their name. Yet if they bothered to read the rest of it, they would see that there is no God besides Jehovah, therefore their claim that Jesus is A god must be false.
There is also the matter of John 17:5 - Jesus said "now glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began". Jesus was with God in the beginning - exactly what John 1:2 and 1 John 1:1-2 say.
Thirdly, there are all the points that I made to you - that "God" is written in a plural form, that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy and claiming to be God, John 10:33; that the Spirit is eternal and was with God in the beginning - yet there is ONE God.
It is far easer for me to explain to, and show, a JW that God is Trinity than it is for them to prove that it doesn't exist.
All this, without the help of the KJV.

Click to expand...

Show me in the Greek, or show me in the original languages. You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like the Roman Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, then I suppose that is fine. But I do not agree with their history in hiding God’s Word from the common folk in how they spoke the special languages that the common man could not understand. This is just one clue that all Modern Bibles are tied to Rome. Just do your own homework and or read through this thread of what I wrote recently and you will see the truth. Nestle and Aland had approval by the Vatin to write their Greek NT text of which many Modern Translations today are based upon. A Catholic cardinal was an editor on it. FACT. Kurt Aland can be seen in pictures with the Pope. FACT. Nestle and Aland used Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT text, too. Hort was into Catholicism, and one of the manuscripts they used to create their Greek text was from a Catholic vault. Before the Critical Text came into being, the King James Bible was around for hundreds of years. So we would not even be having this argument if the Critical Text was never created for the public. But you have chosen your side. I have chosen mine.

Good day to you in the Lord.

robycop3 said:

The KJV (NOT"KJB") has been changed quite a few times. You admit as much by claiming the CE was "refined" (changed) 7 times. As translating becomes more-exact, sometimes a translation must be improved.
Some doctrines may SEEM more-pure to you, but are they more-ACCURATE in the KJV? I showed ya two that are not, in Ex. 20:13 & 1 Tim. 6:10.

And why go to the bother of trying to read 2 translations at once insteada simply using a translation that one can clearly understand? Sometimes your stuff defies logic.

Click to expand...

But Scripture speaks of these changes or purifications. These changes were also not major ones like what we see in Modern Translations, either. In the KJB, it was to fix printing errors, and or to update to a standardized way of grammar for the time (like how letters changed in usage of words, etc.). Sure, there were a few word changes that were subtle, but they were not many. For the changes between the Oxford and the Cambridge is not that significant. But again, we can choose only ONE Word of God.

Oh, and please stop repeating the verses I already explained. If you do not accept my explanations, then fine. But repeating them is not going to do any good. You need to move on if you do not accept my explanations with Scripture.

Bible Highlighter said:

It sounds like the Roman Catholic Church.... But I do not agree with their history in hiding God’s Word from the common folk in how they spoke the special languages that the common man could not understand.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if you realize how you are shooting yourself in the foot with your posts.

myst33 said:

Sometimes I wonder if you realize how you are shooting yourself in the foot with your posts.

Click to expand...

It might appear that way to you who has a hatred for believers trusting in a perfect Word of God 100%, but things are not always appear in how we see them. If this is not the case, then we could never be wrong about anything as we grow in knowledge of things on this Earth.