Why are so many post "KJVO"?

[Mexdeaf]

Why don't you show up here and prove your assertions?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58290


:type:

Because he cannot.

 

[Askjo]

Because he cannot.

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

 

[annsni]

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

No you can't.

 

[Tater77]

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

The Nag Hammadi Library, those comprise the Gnostic books. Gnostic heresies were removed from the mainstream after the Church became official in the 4th century under Constantine. Read up on the numerical councils that met throughout that century after the conversion of Constantine; Nicea , Carthage, Hippo etc etc. The first council of Nicea was called specifically to settle things like that.

Having re-read the majority of the Bible in a modern version, I dont even begin to see where your getting this gnostic junk at? Who is your KJVO source?

 

[Dale-c]

Most KJVO people never even read a so called "MV" With people like Gail Riplinger putting fear into people to even open an NIV, it is no wonder.
Of course she and others must keep people from reading newer translations of God's Word lest they realize the truth contained in them and leave their KJVO advocacy.

 

[Eliyahu]

This thread, the Bible Versions and Translation Thread must be sick and tired to display so many posts mostly about KJV and MV issues for many years.

MV's are nothing but the translations based on the Roman Catholic or Orthodox which persecuted the Words of God thru the history, which include many modifications apparently.

If you have not discerned them yet, you may need some more decades to study on it.

When I read thru the Greek NT and Hebrew OT, I realize the issue is not there.

There are the issues between TR and Majority Texts, not between TR and Minority texts ( Alexandrian Texts), and Greek Texts and Aramaic as a whole, and Hebrew Masoretic Texts themselves like Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher and Talgum.

There are problems with KJV, let alone the language update problem. There are more problem in OT than in NT.
In NT KJV didn't distinguish between Gehenna and Hades, in OT it didn't distinguish between Elohim and Malack, and sometimes it deviated from the principle of Word to Word translation. But the criticism against KJV here is all the time from the view of MV's. MV's are ultimately rooted in Catholic, Idol worshippers.

I know you are not such people that are capable to understand those issues, and therefore you just repeat the same debate for many years, again and again, yet without realizing the MV's are ultimately based on Vatican Texts plus a little Orthodox kindling paper Aleph.

At the end this thread looks like a place to pass time or to waste time, repeating the same grade.

 

[rsr]

I know you are not such people that are capable to understand those issues,

It must be tiring for you to have to repeatedly try to impart understanding to us who are so devoid of it. Thank you so much for your efforts.

yet without realizing the MV's are ultimately based on Vatican Texts plus a little Orthodox kindling paper Aleph.

Would you care to tell us who preserved the manuscripts that the TR and MT are based upon? Some proof would be nice.

At the end this thread looks like a place to pass time or to waste time, repeating the same grade.

So which of those is your motivation for posting?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

Define "Gnostic"- we asked before and never got an answer.

Once you do that, then give us some specific examples of "Gnostic" Bibles- not the same old "Well so and so sez" or a cut and paste job, but some of your own personal research that is verifiable.

Until then you have no credibility.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I know you are not such people that are capable to understand those issues, and therefore you just repeat the same debate for many years, again and again, yet without realizing the MV's are ultimately based on Vatican Texts plus a little Orthodox kindling paper Aleph.

I am sure that some folks in Heaven are having a laugh -as well as some in Hell screaming "NO"- over you calling the Bibles of their day "kindling paper".

 

[Eliyahu]

If youn have compared Aleph with other Greek texts, you can find it is not the quality of Bible. It contains so many errors. It proves itself is the writing exercise book for the Bible.

Majority texts have been preserved by many believers throughout Europe. But in case of Vaticanus B, it is apparent that the Roman Church organization which persecuted Believers and prohibited the Bible as in 1229.

If you do not recognize such difference, you are quite far away from discussing about the Bible texts and translations.

 

[Zenas]

Hello, Eliyahu. I just noticed you are back after taking a whole year off.

 

[TC]

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

You are the one making the allegation, therefore it is up to you provide the evidence to prove it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

If youn {sic} have compared Aleph with other Greek texts, you can find it is not the quality of Bible {sic}. It contains so many errors. It proves itself is {sic} the writing exercise book for the Bible. ...

I've been following this debate. Frankly, it has proved a little difficult at times because Eliyahu does not always communicate clearly (see above short quote for a few examples).

How can someone who seems to be familiar with minute details of English Bible texts himself have such poor English writing skills? Is English his second language (as a French Canadian) or something? I found no clues in his profile data.

Language Cop, where are you?

 

[Tater77]

The Catholic versions are not the same as the NIV, NASB, ESV and such. The official Catholic Bibles sanctioned are the NAB (New American Bible), Latin Vulgate of course, NRSV Catholic Edition, Douey Rhiems. These are all translated to conform to the Latin and do read somewhat differently that Protestant modern translations.

 

[Eliyahu]

The Catholic versions are not the same as the NIV, NASB, ESV and such. The official Catholic Bibles sanctioned are the NAB (New American Bible), Latin Vulgate of course, NRSV Catholic Edition, Douey Rhiems. These are all translated to conform to the Latin and do read somewhat differently that Protestant modern translations.

(attack on Bibles deleted)
The ultimate root of the underlying texts are B, A, Aleph, eventually the Alexandrian texts.

 

[EdSutton]

Their fathers are the same. Read John 8:44.
The ultimate root of the underlying texts are B, A, Aleph, eventually the Alexandrian texts.

Jn. 8:44

You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (D-R)

Ye are of your father the deuill, and the luʃts of your father ye will doe: hee was a murtherer from the beginning, and abode not in the trueth, becauʃe there is no truth in him. When he ʃpeaketh a lie, he ʃpeaketh of his owne: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (KJ-!611, 1612 'Roman' font)

(of his own: or, from his own will or disposition - KJT Translator notes)

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (KJ- 1769 ?)

Ye are of the father the deuell, and after the luʃtes of youre father wyl ye do. The ʃame was a murthurer from the begynnynge, and abode not in the trueth: for the trueth is not in him. Whan he ʃpeaketh a lye, then ʃpeaketh he of his awne: for he is a lyar, and a father of the ʃame. (MCB)

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. (NKJV)

You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. (HCSB)

You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaksfrom his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it. (LIT)

Did I miss something from these other 6 citations that is not found in the D-R?

I did cite the NKJV, HCSB, and LIT being as they are the most 'Baptist' based of these versions, unlike the KJVs, MCB, and D-R, you understand.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

(attack on Bibles deleted)
The ultimate root of the underlying texts are B, A, Aleph, eventually the Alexandrian texts.

You have that one backwards and A=Aleph. Also all but a handful of pre-4th century mss are Alexandrian but not all are from Alexandria. Its a text type and a location.

 

[Keith M]

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

How 'bout this, Askjo?

Gnosticism differs from "official" Christianity in two importand respects: 1) Gnostics believed the material world was created as evil and corrupted, and 2) Jesus was a spirit, not actual flash {sic}. Jesus was born of the Holy Spiit in both Gnosticism and Christianity, but in Gnosticism the Holy Spirit was the "feminine" or female aspect of God. Thus the Holy Spirit was the true "mother" of Jesus.
- Lewis Loflin http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnosticism.htm

Askjo, this is what Gnostics believed. Can you show us one single modern Bible translation that teaches us "the material world was created as evil and corrupted" or that "Jesus was a spirit" and not actual flesh? If not then your allegations of "Gnostic Bibles" are totally without merit. We'll be waiting for you to show us some "Gnostic Bibles," Askjo.

 

[Eliyahu]

You have that one backwards and A=Aleph. Also all but a handful of pre-4th century mss are Alexandrian but not all are from Alexandria. Its a text type and a location.

I was talking about A meaning Alexandrinus which dates back to fifth century

Aleph means Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in 19 century but dates back to 4th century.

So, A is not Aleph.

Aleph may reflect Greek Orthodox.

This aleph contains many spelling mistakes etc.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have made some short study on Sinaiticus ( Aleph) only for Matthew 1-13.

Bible Sinaiticus Errors or Variances


Matthew 1- 13:

1. Matt 6:15 their tresspasses
Majority Texts: παραπτωματα αυτων
VaticanusB : παραπτωματα αυτων
Alelph Sinaiticus : Omitted

Paraptomata auton is omitted in Aleph, while all the other manuscripts including B have it.

2. MT 6:25 : what ye shall drink

Majority Texts : τιπιητε
Vaticanus B : τιπιητε
Aleph : Omitted

Ti piete – what to drink, omitted while all the other mss contain it, Vaticanus B contain it.

3. 6:28 How they grow
Majority Texts : αυξανει
Vaticanus B : αυξανουσιν
Aleph : ου ξενουσιν

How they grow ( majority and B), how they are not strange?( Aleph)

4. 9:5 thy sins are forgiven
Μajority : αφεωνται Perfect Passive
Β ¨αφιενται Present Passive
Α: αφιονται – incorrect grammar


5. 13:7 choke, suffocate

Majority : απεπνιξαν
Β : Απεπνιξαν
Aleph : Απνιξαν

There is no word like Aleph, while all the others say choke

6 12:10 to heal
Majority : θεραπευειν – Present Active Infinitive
Β: θεραπευειν
Αleph : θεραπευσαι – Aorist Active Infinitive

No reason to have Aorist there. Aleph disagrees with B again.

7: 13:25 sowed
Majority : εσπειρε – Aorist Infinitive
Β¨επεσπειρεν – Aorist Infinitive
Αleph : ¨επεσπαρακεν
Spelling Mistake in Aleph

8: 13: 44 in the field
Majority : εντωαγρω
Β: εν τω αγρω
Αleph : Omitted

9: 13:55 Jose – Yose

Majority : Ιωσης ( Yoses)
Β: Ιωσηφ ( Yoseph)
Αleph : Ιωαννης ( Yohannes)
Aleph contradicts itself in Matt 27:56 as it states Yoseph (Ιωσηφ).

You can see Aleph often differs not only from Majority manuscripts but also from B, and sometimes the words do not make sense at all.