• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why are so many post "KJVO"?

E

EdSutton

New Member
Eliyahu said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess we now know what you actually think of someone who holds any different POV from your own.

How :tear:

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
E

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Tater77 said:
My bad, Aleph = Siniaticus and A is Alexandrinus . Then B is Vaticanus. So your actually right.
Click to expand...

It seems that you debated even without knowing that.

Did you see the errors of Aleph show in my post?

How many would be in the whole NT if I continue to check them?

I stopped it to save my time.
 
T

Tater77

New Member
Eliyahu said:
It seems that you debated even without knowing that.

Did you see the errors of Aleph show in my post?

How many would be in the whole NT if I continue to check them?

I stopped it to save my time.
Click to expand...

Sinaiticus has some errors and i cant even remember when someone ever said it was perfect. There are some readings that are only found in Aleph. But there are word choices on a verse ending such as reading "all the saints" when the majority reads with another end word for example.

If you actually pay attention in a modern version you will often find things like that in notes. These saying " one ancient mss reads" or "a few ancient mss read" these talk about the unused variants found in Aleph, or A.

Eliyahu, do you actually own any modern translations or do you just read KJVO articles that are notorious for their terrible scholarship?
 
R

rbell

Active Member
mcdirector said:
Ahhh, but you provided such a good topic for discussion - one people are passionate about and enjoy getting into.
Click to expand...

Yes indeedy...we have folks who are KJVTO (King James Version Threads Only), MVTO (Modern Version Threads Only), KJVTP (King James Version Threads Preferred), MVTP (Modern Version Threads Preferred), and the DTTMTSO (Don't Take Too Many Threads Seriously Only).

The last is a lonely category.
 
E

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Tater77 said:
Sinaiticus has some errors and i cant even remember when someone ever said it was perfect. There are some readings that are only found in Aleph. But there are word choices on a verse ending such as reading "all the saints" when the majority reads with another end word for example.

If you actually pay attention in a modern version you will often find things like that in notes. These saying " one ancient mss reads" or "a few ancient mss read" these talk about the unused variants found in Aleph, or A.

Eliyahu, do you actually own any modern translations or do you just read KJVO articles that are notorious for their terrible scholarship?
Click to expand...


Basically, I am a little different from many other KJVO's. I am not KJVO either. I have found errors in KJV too.

But as I pointed out, Aleph is not so accurate as to be called Bible manuscript or text, because there are too many errors. Apparently it was a kind of Exercise book and was to be used for kindling fire, which we can tell from many of its errors.
If I am given a time to analyze it further, I can point out hundreds of ridiculous errors.

I don't rely on any articles of KJVO's, but read and interpret the Greek NT and Hebrew OT for myself. The articles from KJVO's are used sometimes, to compare my understanding to theirs. So, sometimes I point out the errors of KJV in Mark 2:26 and Exodus 22:28.
 
Trotter

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
Neither, Jim. The site takes the differences and tries to make them into what they are not. It is low-brow and shoddy workmanship, mainly parrotting the ilk put out by others from what I see. Here's the first example:

Matthew 6:13

KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

NIV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

The NIV leaves out "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Everything pertaining to His Kingdom and Deity is left out."
Click to expand...
The footnote from the NIV - "Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

The NIV is up front and honest in that the phrase does not appear in all manuscripts, or even most, but only in some of the later manuscripts. The rest are differences in translation for the most part and grasping at straws for the rest. It makes me sick at my stomach to even read the crap.
 
A

Askjo

New Member
Trotter said:
The footnote from the NIV - "Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

The NIV is up front and honest in that the phrase does not appear in all manuscripts, or even most, but only in some of the later manuscripts. The rest are differences in translation for the most part and grasping at straws for the rest. It makes me sick at my stomach to even read the crap.
Click to expand...
I heard many different phrases for example:

"this verse not found in the earliest mss"
"later mss add"
"anciet mss omit" etc,...

Nothing new! Massive manuscripts contained this phrase. A few mss removed. Modern versions did not follow a few manuscripts that CONTAINED this phrase.
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo said:
Please show me this site where lies and deception are. Take any quotations from this site and show me lies and deception.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NIV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." The NIV leaves out "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Everything pertaining to His Kingdom and Deity is left out."
Click to expand...

This is a lie since the phrase is printed right here in my NIV. It is in a footnote but it is not "left out" nor is everything pertaining to His Kingdom and diety is left out. Christ's kingdom and deity is clearly spoken of in the NIV.

Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." NIV "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "The kingdom of God" is changed to "his kingdom."
Click to expand...

When you read the PASSAGE (remember there were no verse separations. Verse 32 says "For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them." The next verse/sentence says "But seek first his kingdom..." Who's kingdom would they be speaking of? The NIV uses something from the English language called pronouns. My first grader learned about them this year. Since "his" points back to a subject in the former sentence, this argument is once again, lies.

Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity.
Click to expand...

HUH? They called Jesus (the subject of the passage and the subject to whom they were speaking) "Son of God". There is no argument here. That is not degrading His deity - yet another lie.

I could go on - but I'd rather spend time with my family. I've seen lists like this and they are full of untruths, deceptions and lies. Typical.
 
E

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
Yep - went through the first few Bible verses with my own Bibles and I see that, once again, a KJVO site is full of deception and lies.
Click to expand...

We will all be responsible for what we uttered, on the Great Day of Judgment. Stop the false accusation!
 
Trotter

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
Askjo said:
I heard many different phrases for example:

"this verse not found in the earliest mss"
"later mss add"
"anciet mss omit" etc,...

Nothing new! Massive manuscripts contained this phrase. A few mss removed. Modern versions did not follow a few manuscripts that CONTAINED this phrase.
Click to expand...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen-If any reliance is to be placed on external evidence, this doxology, we think, can hardly be considered part of the original text. It is wanting in all the most ancient manuscripts; it is wanting in the Old Latin version and in the Vulgate: the former mounting up to about the middle of the second century, and the latter being a revision of it in the fourth century by Jerome, a most reverential and conservative as well as able and impartial critic. As might be expected from this, it is passed by in silence by the earliest Latin fathers; but even the Greek commentators, when expounding this prayer, pass by the doxology. On the other hand, it is found in a majority of manuscripts, though not the oldest; it is found in all the Syriac versions, even the Peschito-dating probably as early as the second century-although this version lacks the "Amen," which the doxology, if genuine, could hardly have wanted; it is found in the Sahidic or Thebaic version made for the Christians of Upper Egypt, possibly as early as the Old Latin; and it is found in perhaps most of the later versions. On a review of the evidence, the strong probability, we think, is that it was no part of the original text.
Click to expand...
Source: http://bible.cc/matthew/6-13.htm

It is believed that the writings of Matthew were later influenced by liturgical usage. Thus the doxology at the end is believed to have been added at a later time.

It is interesting to note, that in this same passage in some of the manuscripts, some scribes felt it needful to include a reference to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in this location. There are some three manuscripts that are rather recent that contain such a rendering.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_613.htm

Care to recant your rant?
 
T

Tater77

New Member
Matthew 6:13:
TEXT: "but rescue us from the evil one."
EVIDENCE: S B D 0170 f1 many lat vg most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASVn NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: K L W Delta Theta Pi f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect some lat syr(p,h,pal) TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASV (in brackets) NIVn NEBn TEVn

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the power forever and ever."
EVIDENCE: one lat

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: syr(c)

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: cop(south)

COMMENTS: The familiar ending to the Lord's Prayer is absent from old manuscripts of several types of ancient text. It is found in several forms, the best known of which seems to have come from 1 Chronicles 29:11-13.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top