The KJVO myth...

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm looking at mss. from all available sources. The ones used to make the KJV have "pascha" in Acts 12:4, same as the CT ones do. Same with 1 Tim. 6:10, and Rev. 16:5, in which "and shalt be" is NOT found in ANY known ms.

This is a weak argument because even Modern Translations use words that are not in the original languages. Again, words can be lost between one language to another or words can be added to convey the same meaning or thought. I know this because I am married to a Brazillian who speaks Brazillian Portuguese. She has told me that certain words are lost in translation when translating English to Brazillian Portuguese when I asking her how to translate certain phrases or sentences. Less words or more words does not exactly mean they are not saying the same thing. If you ever used Google Translate before, you should know this.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, you would be arguing against dictionaries, and an Encyclopedia.

See post #953, post #954, post #955.

Also, I would encourage you to read in their entirety the following two articles with an open mind. If not, you are simply seeing what you want to see because you have a serious “hate on” for the KJB for some odd reason.

“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4?

Another King James Bible Believer

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.)

If after you carefully considered the information given in these two articles with an open mind, and you are still shaking your head… “no.” I don’t know what else to tell you to convince you.

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!

You are simply not agreeing for your own personal reasons. In that case, we can politely agree to disagree in love in respect in Christ.

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

You go back to your imperfect “choose your own adventure bibles” (as your ever slightly changing authority), and I go back to my pure Word (the KJB as my FINAL word of authority).

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.

We will both have to give an account of the truth to the Lord our God in how we served Him in this life and in everything we thought, said, and did. We cannot hide from the Lord anything. I am following what I believe is the truth and I am 100% convinced in regards to my position on the KJB (Which is a unique position in that the KJB is either the pure Word (without error), or the KJB may be very close to being perfect like upper 90% or something). But I would not know if the KJB is not pure without facing God one day. I have to choose one Word of God that is pure that I can hold in my hands today and take by faith. If not, then I am the seat of God and determine what are God’s words, and what are not God’s words. I don’t have that kind of authority. It’s either all true, or all false. I choose to trust God by faith in His Word. I would rather trust in His Word more than trust less. But you can doubt His Word in parts if you like and say there are errors in His Word. I just don’t think that is beneficial to uplifting and building the faith in loving God and others with a self sacrificial love that Christ calls us to answer.

Look closely at your position. When something has been **PROVEN** to be an error & you still accept, does that correct said error?

And I don't doubt one word of God's; I DO doubt some translations of some of them. I've pointed out a few of them from your pet version, and yet you still try to defend them. Wrong is WRONG. Two wrongs don't make a right. When a rendering is wrong & you wrongly try to justify it, that doesn't make it right.

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. 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.

 

[ChetSinger]

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.

I think the KJVO belief is ridiculous. All one must do is identify a even single error in the text and the entire belief falls flat. And that's not hard to do, especially in the Old Testament.

 

[trophy33]

I think the KJVO belief is ridiculous. All one must do is identify a even single error in the text and the entire belief falls flat. And that's not hard to do, especially in the Old Testament.

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.

 

[Bob_1000]

Do YOU have a perfect Bible? If so, pleast tell us its name. (It's not the KJV, as we've proven here that it's NOT perfect.)

The only thing you've proven is that you have no idea what the word of God is. You have this made up idea that the word of God DIED with the original manuscripts DIED. You're logic is that there WAS only ONE WAY to say "In the beginning God created..." and if it isn't said EXACTLY that way then the translation is wrong.

 

[Bob_1000]

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.

What about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke that don't match. Does that mean they're WRONG or does it mean that you just don't understand why they're different at your current level of understanding?

 

[trophy33]

What about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke that don't match. Does that mean they're WRONG or does it mean that you just don't understand why they're different at your current level of understanding?

Thats exactly your reasoning - nothing is ever wrong, just misunderstood.

You start with the belief that the KJV must be perfect. Its like the faith in God to you.

So even if I posted dozen of KJV errors, none would be accepted. It would be like leaving Christianity, to you, to accept that Bible is not perfect.

 

[Bob_1000]

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.

If you were God and you wanted to give a name to the fulfillment of Passover, what would you call it?

 

[Bob_1000]

Thats exactly your reasoning - nothing is ever wrong, just misunderstood.

You start with the belief that the KJV must be perfect. Its like the faith in God to you.

So even if I posted dozen of KJV errors, none would be accepted. It would be like leaving Christianity, to you, to accept that Bible is not perfect.

ALL BIBLES have different genealogies in those two passages, this has nothing to do with any specific bible. Are all bibles WRONG?

 

[trophy33]

ALL BIBLES have different genealogies in those two passages, this has nothing to do with any specific bible. Are all bibles WRONG?

Why are we talking about genealogies, right now?

 

[Bob_1000]

Why are we talking about genealogies, right now?

I'm giving you an example of a SO CALLED error in the bible.... It isn't an error no matter how many people THINK it's an error.

 

[trophy33]

I'm giving you an example of a SO CALLED error in the bible.... It isn't an error no matter how many people THINK it's an error.

There are much more simple and more obvious errors than genealogies. Genealogies are a complex issue, because they were used differently than we do today.

 

[ChetSinger]

What about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke that don't match. Does that mean they're WRONG or does it mean that you just don't understand why they're different at your current level of understanding?

From what I've read, I think it likely that one is Joseph's and the other is Mary's.

 

[robycop3]

Nowhere did I say that when God DIRECTLY SPEAKS or DIRECTLY INSPIRES SCRIPTURE that it needs to be purified seven times. That is something you assumed I said (Which I never stated). Psalms 12:6 is saying that the Word is being purified like silver. That is what the word “as” is saying. The word as is like the word “like.”

In the NKJV it says,

“The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times.” (Psalms 12:6) (NKJV).

It’s obviously comparing the Word (Which is pure) with another thing that is pure to give us an idea (like silver purified seven times). Problem is that you don’t believe the Word is pure. You have books of the Lord that is close to pure, but it is not pure. So the cover of some of your bibles is not telling the truth. They cannot say “Holy Bible” because holy implies something that is perfect and pure. Something with errors in it is not pure.

I've never said GOD'S words were anything BUT pure. What's NOT pure are man's translations of some of them.

Anyways, my point is that not all of Scripture has one meaning alone. There are multiple meanings (beyond the main meaning or point) that we can gain from God’s Word. If this is the case, then it is possible that the facts of history on the KJB having seven editions counting up to the Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) is simply a fact. Whether you believe the Cambridge Edition KJB to be perfect or not is on you. I believe it because that is my only choice in regards to the faith. For the faith you offer with chasing down a Word of God to maybe have a perfect or pure Word one day is not something that seems like it is of God. I believe God wants me to spend my life in loving Him and others with standing upon His Word with absolute confidence with no wavering in my faith in what He said.

I have a CE KJV (NOT "KJB") & it has the same goofs & booboos I pointed out earlier.
And you made a point I was gonna mention-that many words/phrases in the manuscript languages have multiple English meanings & thus, all translations are different, as translators must choose one meaning from all the possibilities.
I believe every word God caused to appear in Scripture & thus I use multiple translations to ass as many of the meanings of various ancient-language words as possible.

This is NOT, of course, lost on God, and thus, He's caused many translations in many languages to be made.

The Modern Translations are in a constant state of flux and change. It’s a faith that so utterly changes as a result because faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

And we should hear God's word in as ACCURATE a translation as possible.

 

[Bob_1000]

There are much more simple and more obvious errors than genealogies. Genealogies are a complex issue, because they were used differently than we do today.

There's nothing complex about the genealogies, one says Joseph's father is Heli and the other says Joseph's father was Jacob and they're both 100% correct.

The genealogies are different for a reason and anybody who knows anything about Christianity should recognize why they're different immediately but people who believe their bibles are full of errors write it off as a transcription error.

 

[trophy33]

There's nothing complex about the genealogies, one says Joseph's father is Heli and the other says Joseph's father was Jacob and they're both 100% correct.

The genealogies are different for a reason and anybody who knows anything about Christianity should recognize why they're different immediately but people who believe their bibles are full of errors write it off as a transcription error.

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

 

[robycop3]

This is a weak argument because even Modern Translations use words that are not in the original languages. Again, words can be lost between one language to another or words can be added to convey the same meaning or thought. I know this because I am married to a Brazillian who speaks Brazillian Portuguese. She has told me that certain words are lost in translation when translating English to Brazillian Portuguese when I asking her how to translate certain phrases or sentences. Less words or more words does not exactly mean they are not saying the same thing. If you ever used Google Translate before, you should know this.

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.

 

[Bob_1000]

From what I've read, I think it likely that one is Joseph's and the other is Mary's.

It's not, both are the genealogy of Jesus through David.

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

[robycop3]

I think the KJVO belief is ridiculous. All one must do is identify a even single error in the text and the entire belief falls flat. And that's not hard to do, especially in the Old Testament.

yes, the KJVO myth is plain-ole-FALSE. It's not even found in the KJV itself, a fact that automatically makes it false.

 

[robycop3]

The only thing you've proven is that you have no idea what the word of God is. You have this made up idea that the word of God DIED with the original manuscripts DIED. You're logic is that there WAS only ONE WAY to say "In the beginning God created..." and if it isn't said EXACTLY that way then the translation is wrong.

No, that's the KJVO method. I use multiple translations.