The KJVO myth...

[Bob_1000]

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.

I don't understand your problem with "thou shalt not kill". Under what circumstances do you think God authorizes you to kill someone?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't hate the KJV; I hate the false KJVO MYTH. Proving it wrong requires pointing out the deficiencies of the KJV. Again, you show where you got your KJVO myth from by using one of their mantras: "You hate the KJV."




No such thing as a "KJB" unless it's a new model Jaguar.
As I said, proving the KJV myth false requires pointing out deficiencies in the KJV.
I trust God's word by faith. You trust one outdated version of it by guesswork.
And I fight the KJVO myth because, as I said earlier, my calling is to work against false doctrines & cults, and the Holy Spirit has led me to conclusive proof that KJVO is false.




YOU have claims; I have PROOF.




OK, here's some proof for you: All true doctrines of faith/worship are found only in Scripture, either empirically or by clear implication, right? Well, just WHERE IN SCRIPTURE is KJVO found?????????????? If it aint there, it's FALSE, right?

Now, WHO is the ultimate source of all false doctrines of faith/worship? It's Ol' Scratch, isn't it? Therefore, he's the ultimate source of the KJVO myth, right?
See how easy that was?


Not when the statement against that belief is TRUE, & I just showed you that the statement "Satan invented KJVO" is true.

I understood that you were referring to the belief in KJB Only belief as being bad. But if I am correct, and you are wrong, you would be calling that which is good as evil, and that’s not good (Especially if you had to explain your words here yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself).

Anyways, it’s time for us to move on unless you can offer anything else substantial.

Peace be unto you in the Lord.

 

[trophy33]

I don't understand your problem with "thou shalt not kill". Under what circumstances do you think God authorizes you to kill someone?

If you read what happened next, you saw that Israel was commanded to kill many people in various wars.

So, self defense, wars, police actions or hunting animals for food are examples one will think of quite immediatelly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So?
Erasmus was a catholic priest and worked on his text alone. And protestants in Europe had no problem adopting his work.
Nestlé Aland has a committee composed of representatives of various Christian branches and from universities.

There is around one billion of catholics and they need a Bible too. Why should not they be allowed to work on the Greek text alongside others?

I would encourage you to read this article with an open mind about Erasmus.

What About Erasmus?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you read what happened next, you saw that Israel was commanded to kill many people in various wars.

So, self defense, wars, police actions or hunting animals for food are examples one will think of quite immediatelly.

Obviously God gave other commands in destroying other nations, and in punishing those with death if they broke the Old Law. So thou shalt not kill is in context to taking life of one’s own choice outside of God’s command back then. It’s not a contradiction or problem.


Side Note:

Today, we are under a New Covenant with New Commands. We are to love and pray and do good towards our enemies instead. Only when Christ returns will dis-embodied saints (who lived out their faith) will follow the Lord into battle.

 

[trophy33]

I would encourage you to read this article with an open mind about Erasmus.

What About Erasmus?

And are you allowed to be open minded about the KJV not being perfect or even not being just better than modern translations?

I have nothing against Erasmus working on the TR and I have nothing against a good catholic Christian working on Nestlé Aland. I just point out to you that your reasons are not good.

People can be good or bad regardless of the Christian branch they are in. The word "Catholic" does not automatically mean evil person.

But if you still repeat that N-A has some relations to catholics, I repeat to you that your own Bible is based on a catholic and anglican work.

P.S.: the website you gave recommends an ebook called "Satanic attack on sacred music" right next to the article you sent me. I thought you are against such formulations and I would suppose you will not spend time on such websites.

 

[trophy33]

Obviously God gave other commands in destroying other nations, and in punishing those with death if they broke the Old Law. So thou shalt not kill is in context to taking life of one’s own choice outside of God’s command back then. It’s not a contradiction or problem.

You shall not murder is a more suitable translation, then. The word "kill" is too general and confusing, for example to Bob_1000. See his post #1041.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And are you allowed to be open minded about the KJV not being perfect or even not being just better than modern translations?

I have nothing against Erasmus working on the TR and I have nothing against a good catholic Christian working on Nestlé Aland. I just point out to you that your reasons are not good.

People can be good or bad regardless of the Christian branch they are in. The word "Catholic" does not automatically mean evil person.

But if you still repeat that N-A has some relations to catholics, I repeat to you that your own Bible is based on a catholic and anglican work.

I said before that I do hold to a 1% possibility that the KJB could not be the pure Word of God but the only way I could truly know that is if I face God and He would reveal that to me. From my perspective, the Modern Translation viewpoint is not only absent in Scripture, but it is like a shifting foundation for one’s faith. While God has made changes (like between the OT vs. the NT, etc.), God’s truth does not shift or change so rapidly like they do with Modern Bibles or Critical Texts. The problem I have with the OAO (Original Autograph Only) Position is that is ever changing and I cannot trust something that is ever changing and not perfect. For God is perfect in everything He does. For why would God leave us an imperfect Word and yet say His words are pure? It doesn’t add up. So what you offer is not even remotely tempting because it would destroy my faith. For if God cannot preserve His own Word perfectly, what makes me trust one set of words over another? It’s either all true, or all false. But you don’t seem to get that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You shall not murder is a more suitable translation, then. The word "kill" is too general and confusing, for example to Bob_1000. See his post #1041.

No, you are only saying that because you don’t like the King James Bible Only type belief. If God actually preserved His Word in 1600’s archaic English and we know that the word “kill” means murder by looking it up at dictionary.com, then there is no problem in understanding what it says.

 

[trophy33]

God’s truth does not shift or change so rapidly like they do with Modern Bibles or Critical Texts.

Its not God's truth that is changing, thats a misunderstanding. Its our knowledge of what is the most probable original reading that is changing with how God has been blessing us with more and more discovered ancient manuscripts.

The problem I have with the OAO (Original Autograph Only) Position is that is ever changing and I cannot trust something that is ever changing and not perfect. For God is perfect in everything He does.

This view is problematic because you think that Bible print must be as perfect as God is. Which is a wrong conclusion leading to many false dilemmas and fears.

For why would God leave us an imperfect Word and yet say His words are pure? It doesn’t add up.

David is not God and his song/psalm was not about bible editions. So there is nothing to add up in such a dogmatic manner.

So what you offer is not even remotely tempting because it would destroy my faith.

Your faith seems to be easily destroyable, because its dependent on just one thing - on an obscure view of the Bible. I would recommend to build the faith on a more solid ground and on more legs. It will give you more freedom and more peace.

 

[trophy33]

No, you are only saying that because you don’t like the King James Bible Only type belief. If God actually preserved His Word in 1600’s archaic English and we know that the word “kill” means murder by looking it up at dictionary.com, then there is no problem in understanding what it says.

Ok, I am not English native speaker, so the sincere question - the word "kill" meant "murder" in 1600's? Is this what you are claiming? That it got its general meaning later?

 

[Strong in Him]

Sure it does.

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.

That's got nothing to do with what I posted.

I said, "show me the Greek text and proof that the KJV agrees with the Greek in 1 John 5:7".
You replied, "when you talk about Greek, that sounds like the Roman Catholic church", and went off on a mini tirade about that church.
The fact that you are repeating it and trying to change the subject just confirms what I've said - you don't wish to compare 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV with 1 Jn 5:7 in the Greek because then it might become clear that the KJV has words that were not in the original language. This would mean that the KJV had added them, rather than other versions removing them - and that would remove your main argument about the "perfection" of the KJV.

Again, if you can show what 1 John 5:7 says in the Greek, i.e the original language the NT was written in, compare it with the modern translations and I can see for myself that other Bibles have clearly removed words from the original, you will have proved your point. At least, you will have proved the point that some of the modern Bibles remove verses from the original. You won't have proved the point that we can only learn about the Trinity from the KJV; because that simply isn't true.

It's easy enough to prove, or disprove, what I am saying; show us 1 John 5:7 in the Greek.
I have an interlinear Greek NT and could do it for you, if you like - proving I can work out how to do the Greek alphabet on my keyboard.

 

[trophy33]

I have an interlinear Greek NT and could do it for you, if you like - proving I can work out how to do the Greek alphabet on my keyboard.

Biblehub.com has also interlinear or even just Greek text which is easy to copy, so you do not have to type Greek letters yourself.

 

[Strong in Him]

Biblehub.com has also interlinear or even just Greek text which is easy to copy, so you do not have to type Greek letters yourself.

Thanks.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Changes are CHANGES. Same with other versions.

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.

i DON'T accept your explanations when I have FACTS that counter them, such as about the "Easter" goof.

 

[robycop3]

They call it the King James BIBLE for a reason. So KJB is an abbreviation for King James Bible.
There is a documentary called the KJB. There is the DKJB which is the Defined King James BIBLE.

DKJB - Defined King James Bible (religious scripture) | AcronymFinder

Its vary makers called it the "Authorized VERSION", & soon after, it was called the "King James VERSION". And that's true because that's what the KJV is. It's not "THE" Bible; it's but one English translation.
And you may notice that I call the New American Standard a VERSION as well, as it's no more "THE" Bible than the KJV is.

I already explained these verses already. Time to move on.

And I countered your explanations with FACTS, such as the footnote the AV makers used for the 2nd them in V7.

I can say the same for you. If you want your Modern Rome Bibles, then go right ahead and have them if you are Catholic.

I'm an indy fundy Baptist. Our church does NOT believe nor follow any man-made doctrines of faith/worship at all.
And your "Roman Bible version" stuff is out in left field.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have offered again my best case in defense of the truth under the circumstances. I am moving on. May you all be blessed in the Lord.

 

[robycop3]

I understood that you were referring to the belief in KJB Only belief as being bad. But if I am correct, and you are wrong, you would be calling that which is good as evil, and that’s not good (Especially if you had to explain your words here yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself).

Anyways, it’s time for us to move on unless you can offer anything else substantial.

Peace be unto you in the Lord.

Yes, believing the KJVO myth is bad, because it's completely false. I have **PROVEN** it, not just guessed at it or merely expressed an opionion.

The KJVO myth is simply NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTUIRE; THEREFORE, IT'S FALSE. That's the bottom line, but it's not enough for some people such as yourself who are badly in thrall to that myth. Thus, people such as I must post other facts that prove it false, lest some new Christian gets caught up in it. If you wish to move on, fine, but long as you speak in favor of the KJVO myth, I, or some other like-minded Freedom Readers are gonna counter it.

 

[robycop3]

I have offered again my best case in defense of the truth under the circumstances. I am moving on. May you all be blessed in the Lord.

If THAT was your best, you've lost before you started. You've brought a knife to a gun fight. Beating your case was too easy; it just took some typing. I didn't even have to consult Scripture too much; I simply quoted from memory. Not much brain exercise at all.

Again, may I suggest you ask the HOLY SPIRIT to show you the TRUTH about the KJVO myth. I suggest you compare some of the KJV's writings against the Greek or the Hebrew, as well as the same verses in newer versions. And, I SUGGEST YOU READ THE TRANSLATORS' PREFACE, "TO THE READER", IN THE AV 1611 VERY CAREFULLY!

Meanwhile, may GOD watch over you/yours, and may all your endeavors in His name be successful, except for spreading that false doctrine.

 

[trophy33]

If THAT was your best, you've lost before you started. You've brought a knife to a gun fight.

BTW what happened to your thread about preterism? I cannot find it anymore. Was it deleted?