The KJVO myth...

[trophy33]

Uh… no. We can see that the KJB stands above the rest in regards to be more pure in doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. You can check the list of doctrines that are changed here. You can check out a list of commands that are changed here.

What old Greek manuscript has the KJV reading of 1J 5:7? None.

So its not a dogmatic question "which reading is more comfortable for the doctrine", but its a textual question "was the reading originally there?"

Modern translations do not have the KJV reading of the verse because this reading cannot be found in manuscripts. Thats all. It was added by the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages from the Latin Vulgate.

And even though the addition sounds nice, its simply not original and therefore should not be used as an evidence in a theological debate, anyway. Nobody cares you have it in your medieval Bible print, the verse is not in manuscripts and therefore is not authoritative.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So you take it by faith.

That's how we got God's word. And I don't know what became of the many mss. that Hermann Hoskier collated.

No offense again, but this sounds like you are taking Herman Hoskier’s words by faith and you did not actually check out these manuscripts for yourself to determine if they truly are the divine and perfect Word of God. Can you point me to a perfect Bible today? You don’t appear to have one that you can tangibly point to and read and prove and say it is the perfect Word of God personally.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

 

[Isilwen]

Uh… no. We can see that the KJB stands above the rest in regards to be more pure in doctrine, and instruction in righteousness. You can check the list of doctrines that are changed here. You can check out a list of commands that are changed here.

Which is your opinion. As such, we don't have to actually listen to and do what your opinion says.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So then all translations are fine, per the scripture posted and your words.

Uh, no. I am not saying all translations are fine. If you were to read all of my words, you would know that I am not in favor of Modern Translations because they attack the Trinity, water down verses on the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, holy living, etc., etc.

BTW, not all of the language in the KJV is updated and that is still an issue for me as it's not the vernacular I use.

And like I said…. This should not be an issue if you define difficult words with older dictionaries (like the Websters) and or you look at Modern Translation, etc.

I also still believe that this whole thing about the KJV being the only suitable Bible to be from the pits of hell. As only the father of lies could come up with such to divide the masses.

But what if you are wrong? You would be speaking against God’s very words in claiming they are bad when in reality they are good. That’s a very dangerous position to be in - IMHO.

Now, I can say Modern Translations are tainted by way of comparison to the King James Bible because it’s simply a fact if one were to do the study. In my experience: Most just want to bury their head in the sand and just blindly follow what their church says or what some scholar says.

 

[robycop3]

So your on a continual hunt to hopefully have a pure inerrant Word of God that we can understand one day. I don’t have that problem. I just believe God’s Word in that He would preserve His words for all generations.

I'm not hunting such a version at all. I use what God has made available to me, and trust Him to have given me what He wants me to have. And I don't try to limit Him to any one version. Sure, they read differently, but so do the four Gospels in any given version, although they're all narrations of the same events. And all have been accepted as Scripture from the gitgo.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Which is your opinion. As such, we don't have to actually listen to and do what your opinion says.

No. These are not opinions, but they are facts that you can see for yourself. Commands have actually been changed. Doctrines have actually been changed. Even if they were not changed per say, by way of comparison we can see that the King James Bible is superior in doctrine and it’s commands (for instruction in righteousness) when one compares it to the Modern Translations. Then there is the devil’s name placed in Modern Translations where they don’t belong, either. There are so many red flags that it would make one think they were in a Russian airport. But of course, people see what they want to see for their own reasons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not hunting such a version at all. I use what God has made available to me, and trust Him to have given me what He wants me to have. And I don't try to limit Him to any one version. Sure, they read differently, but so do the four Gospels in any given version, although they're all narrations of the same events. And all have been accepted as Scripture from the gitgo.

So you have no perfect Word of God today that you can read? How do you trust one word is true over another word being false? We cannot be the arbiters of truth when it comes to what words are from God or not in His Word. We don’t have a Bible truth detector machine or device. The only way we can determine the true Word of God is by doing a fruits test between the different Words that are out there and pick the one that we believe to be the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry you have just spent a lot of time on that post, but no; it doesn't.

It may show that they are different to the KJV. But "different" does not mean "inferior" - unless your starting point is that only the KJV is perfect. In which case, anything compared with the KJV will be inferior.

It's on the principle of:
I have a fast red car
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast & red.
I have a car that's red and fast.
I have a car that's colored red & can go fast.
I have a car that can go fast & is colored red.
On & on...
Same message, different words. that's the main differences between valid Bible versions.

 

[trophy33]

No. These are not opinions, but they are facts that you can see for yourself. Commands have actually been changed. Doctrines have actually been changed. Even if they were not changed per say, by way of comparison we can see that the King James Bible is superior in doctrine and it’s commands (for instruction in righteousness) when one compares it to the Modern Translations. Then there is the devil’s name placed in Modern Translations where they don’t belong, either. There are so many red flags that it would make one think they were in a Russian airport. But of course, people see what they want to see for their own reasons.

Your reasoning is absolutely the same as the reasoning of the catholic church for their Latin Vulgate against protestant translations to native languages.

No care what is a correct reading or what is supported by the Greek evidence. Only tradition, "nothing can be changed"! extreme conservatism. KJVO is very similar to the RCC some centuries ago. The same false arguments. The same fear of correction and of change. The fear of learning more, of reformation and of development.

 

[Isilwen]

If you were to read all of my words, you would know that I am not in favor of Modern Translations because they attack the Trinity, water down verses on the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, holy living, etc., etc.

According to your opinion. Others like me don't see it that way and can see exactly what the verse is saying.

And like I said…. This should not be an issue if you define difficult words with older dictionaries (like the Websters) and or you look at Modern Translation, etc.

That is just as distracting as reading the KJV is.

But what if you are wrong?

I'm not. As I said, God lead me to the NRSV. If God thought the KJV was the only authority, He would have lead me that way. He didn't.

You would be speaking against God’s very words in claiming they are bad when in reality they are good. That’s a very dangerous position to be in - IMHO.

Where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the final authority?

Now, I can say Modern Translations are tainted by way of comparison to the King James Bible because it’s simply a fact if one were to do the study.

That is still a false equivalency. And you have based your opinion on that false equivalency.

Most just want to bury their head in the sand

I could say the same for you.

blindly follow what their church says or what some scholar says.

Certainly not my church. I also haven't followed what some scholar says.

 

[robycop3]

So you have no perfect Word of God today that you can read?

They're as perfect as God caused them to be. If YOU have a perfect version, which one is it? (It can't be the KJV, as it has proven goofs & booboos.)

How do you trust one word is true over another word being false? We cannot be the arbiters of truth when it comes to what words are from God or not in His Word. We don’t have a Bible truth detector machine or device. The only way we can determine the true Word of God is by doing a fruits test between the different Words that are out there and pick the one that we believe to be the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness.

So how do YOU choose? Guesswork?
Seems we almost all trust translators. KJVOs do.
That's why I use a range of versions, to read God's word from various translators' viewpoints. God has given different nuggets of wisdom to each one, & it's profitable to have as many "nuggets" as possible.

And remember, the AV makers wrote in their preface that even the "meanest"(poorest) versions are the word of God. They also wrote that VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. (If more KJVOs read the AV's preface closely, there'd be fewer KJVOs!)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What old Greek manuscript has the KJV reading of 1J 5:7? None.

So its not a dogmatic question "which reading is more comfortable for the doctrine", but its a textual question "was the reading originally there?"

Modern translations do not have the KJV reading of the verse because this reading cannot be found in manuscripts. Thats all. It was added by the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages from the Latin Vulgate.

And even though the addition sounds nice, its simply not original and therefore should not be used as an evidence in a theological debate, anyway. Nobody cares you have it in your medieval Bible print, the verse is not in manuscripts and therefore is not authoritative.

I already answered this within this thread. 1 John 5:7 can be traced back through history, and it was definitely added by the Catholic Church. Actually the Critical Text originates and has ties to the Catholic Church. If you know anything about history, it was the Catholics who tried to destroy the translation of the King James Bible with a super bomb. Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.

The Introduction to the Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006) explicitly confirms this close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, an 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." (p. 45)

You can actually see Kurt Land visiting the pope John Paul II here in 1984:

Picture source:
Kurt Aland - Wikipedia

 

[Strong in Him]

You can keep hitting the disagree button, but unless you actually demonstrate your case with showing the actual words in Scripture, you got nothing. For it’s not an opinion that there is only one verse in the Bible that teaches the Trinity directly. It’s simply a fact.

Doesn't matter.
The most important thing is that it is taught in the Bible.
And it is; that is a fact.
As I said, I, and many others believe in the Trinity. And I, for one, don't read the KJV. I learned about the Trinity without it - that is a fact.

Again, other verses may imply the Trinity indirectly, but there is a difference between verses implying the Trinity vs. an actual verse directly teaching the Trinity.

Again, I believe in the Trinity, and I don't read the KJV; nor did I learn about it through the KJV.

But most people are not going to read the verses (without you quoting the actual words).

That's why I wrote the references in full - so that they would come up on the screen and people don't have to look them.

Again, I challenge you to quote the actual words and highlight them that proves your case. Just throwing a bunch of verse numbers at me does not prove anything.

Did you actually read my comment?
When a Bible reference is written in full, not abbreviated, it appears in light blue, and you can place your cursor over the verse and it appears on the screen. Alternatively you could take the trouble to look it up in your own Bible.
I'm not going to spend hours writing references out in full, because you don't want to do either of those things. If the references disagree with what you are saying, you'll find another way of interpreting them anyway.

Do you believe there is a perfect Word of God in existence today?
Yes, or no?

THE perfect Word of God is Jesus.
God's word is perfect - the Gospel, which is the same in all Bibles, is perfect.

I don’t believe that understanding the KJB vs. Modern Translation topic correctly is a salvation issue,

Well there you are then - we can be saved without the KJV, so reading/using it is just a matter of choice.

 

[trophy33]

I already answered this within this thread. 1 John 5:7 can be traced back through history

But not the KJV reading of the verse. Thats the point.

The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.

The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century.[4] The comma is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It appears in some English translations of the Bible via its inclusion in the first printed edition of the New Testament, Novum Instrumentum omne by Erasmus, where it first appeared in the 1522 third edition. In spite of its late date, some members of the King James Only movement have argued for its authenticity.[4]


Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

Actually the Critical Text originates and has ties to the Catholic Church....Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments...close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican...Kurt Land visiting the pope John Paul II...

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest and dedicated Textus Receptus to the Pope. He put the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 to the text on the basis of a fabricated manuscript.
He did not have any Greek manuscript for the end of Revelation, so he translated it to Greek from Latin and created readings non-existent in any Greek manuscript.

The committee of the Nestlé-Aland is the most protestant committee of Greek text in history. Much more protestant-ish than the Textus Receptus author and much more reformed than the Textus Receptus text.

On the other hand, not sure why are you against the RCC, they are trinitarians so its them who wanted the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 and forced Erasmus to add it to his text.
The RCC is on your side.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They're as perfect as God caused them to be. If YOU have a perfect version, which one is it? (It can't be the KJV, as it has proven goofs & booboos.)

People can see mistakes where none exists. Imagine if you are wrong and the King James was perfect or it was closest to the pure Word of God that we can have today, and you attacked it wrongfully. I would not want to be in your shoes when I face the Lord (if such were the case). But my point here is that if there is no perfect Word of God, then what makes you trust some words in your Bible over other words? See, if God cannot preserve His Word perfectly, that means that my faith cannot be perfect because faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For me: If there was no perfect Word in existence that I can hold in my hands, then I would most likely not be a believer today because I cannot be the arbiter of truth deciding what belongs and what does not belong in my Bible. I am not God to be able to determine such things. For God is the ultimate author of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

So how do YOU choose? Guesswork?
Seems we almost all trust translators. KJVOs do.
That's why I use a range of versions, to read God's word from various translators' viewpoints. God has given different nuggets of wisdom to each one, & it's profitable to have as many "nuggets" as possible.

I originally chosen the KJB by comparing the Modern Translations vs. the KJB.
I found it to be more pure in doctrine, and in instruction in righteousness.
The devil’s name is placed in Modern Translations.
There are many problems even with the origins of Modern Translations, as well.
So this was not really a hard one to figure out.
Now, does this mean I cannot use Modern Translations?
No. It just means that they are not my final Word of authority.
For there can only be one Word of God and not many.
For if you were to have a bible study and have everyone bring a different translation and read a passage together…. What are you going to hear? Confusion.
However, the Scriptures say that God is not the author of confusion.
So God cannot be the author of all the translations that are out there.
There can be only one pure Word of God.

And remember, the AV makers wrote in their preface that even the "meanest"(poorest) versions are the word of God. They also wrote that VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. (If more KJVOs read the AV's preface closely, there'd be fewer KJVOs!)

God even had Saul’s men prophesy. It does not mean they were of God. So God can use men despite their own thoughts or ways.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope.
All Bibles proclaim the same, Triune, God; same Saviour, same Spirit, same Gospel, same need to be born again. They all have the same teaching that if we are in Christ we are new creations, 2 Corinthians 5:17, have every spiritual blessing, Ephesians 1:3, are God's children, Romans 8:16, John 1:12, are guaranteed an inheritance, through the Holy Spirit, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:14, cannot be separated from God's love, Romans 8:38-39, cannot be snatched out of God's hands, John 10:29. They teach that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts, 1 Corinthians 12, bears fruit in us, Galatians 5:21-22 and intercedes to God for us, Romans 8:27. They teach that Jesus was both God and man, was born, died for us, raised again, ascended, sent his Spirit to his church, has called his church to serve him and preach the Gospel, and will return again one day.

Anything can affect a Christian's growth in the Lord; not reading, or studying, the Bible enough, for example - taking verses out of context, building a doctrine on only one verse, for example. Even arguing endlessly over words, or interpretations, could affect a Christian's growth in the Lord. But reading the NIV rather than the KJV in study and devotions? No.

The Trinity is true.
But only 1 John 5:7 teaches it directly.

You posted…

Ephesians 1:3 that says,
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ”

However, there is nothing here about how God is one God and yet He is three persons.

Also, I looked at the verses you provided and they do not actually mention how God is a Trinity. Yes, God is a Trinity, but that truth is only directly taught in 1 John 5:7.
So you did not actually provide any verses that teach the same thing as 1 John 5:7.

 

[Bob_1000]

No, the KJV is NOT perfect. It is NOT inerrant.
Error: "Easter" n Acts 12:4

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.

Error: "The love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10

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.

Error: The words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. No known ancient manuscript of Revelation has those words in that verse.
There are plenty more goofs & booboos in the KJV, but no KJVO can get past any of these in my very-short list. Thus, the notion that the KJV is perfect & inerrant goes "POOF!"

"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.

 

[robycop3]

The first printed Bible or the 1st mass produced book was the Gutenberg Bible printed in the 1450’s.
In 1611, a revolutionary change had happened, as well. A Bible came out that would eventually in time be able to be in the hands of the common man whereby he could more easily afford it than ever before. Before this time, it was hard for the average person to acquire a Bible (like we take for granted today).

Well, actually, the Gutenberg was the Latin Vulgate.

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.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But not the KJV reading of the verse. Thats the point.

The passage first appeared as an addition to the Vulgate, the Ecclesiastical Latin translation of the Bible, and entered the Greek manuscript tradition in the 15th century.[2] It does not appear in the oldest Latin manuscripts, and appears to have originated as a gloss around the end of the 4th century.[3] Some scribes gradually incorporated this annotation into the main text over the course of the Middle Ages.

The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma dates from the 15th century.[4] The comma is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It appears in some English translations of the Bible via its inclusion in the first printed edition of the New Testament, Novum Instrumentum omne by Erasmus, where it first appeared in the 1522 third edition. In spite of its late date, some members of the King James Only movement have argued for its authenticity.[4]


Johannine Comma - Wikipedia


Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest and dedicated Textus Receptus to the Pope. He put the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 to the text on the basis of a fabricated manuscript.
He did not have any Greek manuscript for the end of Revelation, so he translated it to Greek from Latin and created readings non-existent in any Greek manuscript.

The committee of the Nestlé-Aland is the most protestant committee of Greek text in history. Much more protestant-ish than the Textus Receptus author and much more reformed than the Textus Receptus text.

On the other hand, not sure why are you against the RCC, they are trinitarians so its them who wanted the KJV reading of 1J 5:7 and forced Erasmus to add it to his text.
The RCC is on your side.

I am for Sola Scriptura strongly.

This is one thing that the Catholics are against (as I am sure you are aware of).
Erasmus worked on a translation that went against what the Catholic Church wanted him to do.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/69–1536), the most famous and important of the Northern or Christian humanists, used his vast learning and his satiric pen to question the practices of the church. Because of his philosophy of Christ, which stressed a focus on the Bible and rejected much medieval superstition, Erasmus, a lifelong Catholic, was accused of laying the egg that hatched Luther.

Source:
Protestantism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Erasmus's teaching rejected the material means to salvation so often peddled to the laity, emphasizing that such things distracted from discovering Jesus. Like Luther, he was particularly scornful of popular Catholic attitudes (and the clergy's exploitation of those attitudes) toward saints, writing in 1503,

But the King James Bible was not a sole work of Erasmus. 47 translators worked on the King James Bible, and it was against heavy opposition by the Catholic Church. The Critical Text is based on two manuscripts of which Westcott and Hort used in the heading up of their translating team. One manuscript was found in an Orthodox monastery, and the other was found in a Catholic vault. Hort was into Catholicism, and Kurt Aland (Who later created another Greek New Testament - which uses Westcott and Hort’s work) was also into Catholicism.

Kurt Aland denied the authenticity of the canon of certain books in the New Testament.

KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

 

[trophy33]

I am for Sola Scriptura strongly.

This is one thing that the Catholics are against (as I am sure you are aware of).
Erasmus worked on a translation that went against what the Catholic Church wanted him to do.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/69–1536), the most famous and important of the Northern or Christian humanists, used his vast learning and his satiric pen to question the practices of the church. Because of his philosophy of Christ, which stressed a focus on the Bible and rejected much medieval superstition, Erasmus, a lifelong Catholic, was accused of laying the egg that hatched Luther.

Source:
Protestantism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Erasmus's teaching rejected the material means to salvation so often peddled to the laity, emphasizing that such things distracted from discovering Jesus. Like Luther, he was particularly scornful of popular Catholic attitudes (and the clergy's exploitation of those attitudes) toward saints, writing in 1503,

But the King James Bible was not a sole work of Erasmus. 47 translators worked on the King James Bible, and it was against heavy opposition by the Catholic Church. The Critical Text is based on two manuscripts of which Westcott and Hort used in the heading up of their translating team. One manuscript was found in an Orthodox monastery, and the other was found in a Catholic vault. Hort was into Catholicism, and Kurt Aland (Who later created another Greek New Testament - which uses Westcott and Hort’s work) was also into Catholicism.

Kurt Aland denied the authenticity of the canon of certain books in the New Testament.

KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

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.