Featured The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

I don't believe in KJVO either. Those people wouldn't like me.

On the LDS cult, do you watch YouTube blogger Doris Hanson's weekly show called Polyagmy: What Love Is This? She points out a lot of incest in Utah and elsewhere among Mormons.

Also, Mohammad allowed for 1st cousins to marry. But then so do several US states I think.

 

You’re right - this is proof that Calvinism leads to the path of destruction . . .

 

All I am saying is that his anti-Semitism isn't the fruit of being KJVO. And I agree he doesn't read the Bible at all. And I would say that is likely not an authentic follower of Jesus. No saved person could be so vile as he.

 

To me, that's an interesting, if slippery slope that you're on, Roby.

When you state "myth", I'm interested to know what you think is "mythical" about someone who sees differences in the translations, and then asks, "why?".
Is it a myth that, for example, the ESV and the KJV not only read very differently in certain passages, but in some they read vastly different?
Should no one be concerned?

It's all the same no matter what the glaring differences are, right?

I actually agree with you on this point:
There is no Scriptural support to back up one version over another.
But there are people who inherently know their Saviour's words, no matter which language they are in ( John 8:47, John 10:27 ).

I know that I will find many of them in the ESV, but I wouldn't use it because it makes heavy use of the CT for it's manuscript base.
I also know that compared to the KJV and some others, the large majority of today's English translations are very different then my trusty AV...because of those same manuscripts being used as a base.

Simply put,
I cannot find any other logical reason for committees to keep making them ad nauseum, other than money.

 

I agree.

But when was the last time you ran into an English bible that was more accurate when compared to the Majority Text than the KJV?
Young's Literal?
The NKJV?

I'm sure it's a matter of opinion, but I never have.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

Are you aware that God can use men to do His will?

" For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." ( Revelation 17:17 )

I believe He did, with some of the work developed during the Reformation.
I think the Lord used William Tyndale for His glory, and that the bulk of the work done in the later "KJV" relied heavily on Tyndale's.

But I don't believe He used men with many of the trsalations being developed today.
Why?

Because we're still on the "we-cannot-know-God's-words-until-all-of-the-extant-manscripts-are-discovered train...
To me, there's still no end in sight and it only gets worse.
There also have not been any major discoveries of manuscripts since the Dead Sea scrolls, if I'm not mistaken.

Do you have a solution to the never-ending English translation debacle?
If it really was a matter of getting to the best one, I think we should have been there long before now.

I agree...so, why won't it die?
I'll tell you why...

Because people see the differences, and rather than trust any of the new ones, many are simply holding on to what they know is a good one.
It's kind of like the guy who loves his old '57 Chevy, and hates the "newfangled" stuff.

If and when another really good one comes along ( like the difference between the Old Latin and Jerome's ), then I'm sure they will probably jump ship and this will go away like a bad dream.


Hey....give it time.
It took almost 50 years for the AV to take over from the other Reformation-era Bibles.

 

We both should know the answer to that, Salty.

He spoke both Hebrew and Koine Greek ( Acts of the Apostles 21:37-40 ).

 

He's also not the author of confusion...which is what's been going on in the English-speaking world for over 150 years now.

 

You know Salty you may have something there... King Jesus Only!... Brother Glen

Btw... Since there has been so much flack about the King James Version (UH who could that possibly be?)... My future quotes will be taken from The King Jesus Only Bible!

 

They all are.

I'm surprised you would ask that.
It's all God's inspired word.

Can I prove that the Textus Receptus is the superior text base?
No.

Can I prove that most English translations today are based on an even smaller cross-section of mss than the AV?
I think that was done a long time ago.

Of course not.
Can you?

I feel in my spirit, that the TR is the correct one.

However, It cannot be proven in a court of law.
If you ask many "KJVO's" / "KJVP's", they would probably tell you the same thing.

However, I probably could make a very convincing case before a jury, of your apparent bias against the AV.

Which leads me to a question...
What exactly is it that you hate about the AV?

 

A better translation, just as the translators said in their preface.

Can you find a reason that the need for a better translation exists today?
If so, which one, and if God-sponsored, why isn't it finished yet?

That you know of.
What you may consider fact, another person may consider bears looking in to..

Respectfully,
There's are many reasons people may disagree with your evaluation, Roby.

Was that in 1881 with the advent of the Westcott and Hort Critical Text, or the English RSV in 1885?
I think you've missed the problem.

The big question I have for you is...are we there yet?
Again, if today's English translations were being made in order to get to a better translation, as the KJV was, then why are there so many, and being developed and released in such quick succession?

It's about money, Roby....not getting a better translation.

If I were guessing, I'd say that what bothers you most about "KJVO", is that you don't want anyone to force you into using something that is 400 years old.
No one is trying to do that.

The argument is, it's more accurate....not easier to read than many others.
The argument is, it's based on the TR, which is far more accurate with regard to the Majority Text than the CT is.

Therefore, it's even more accurate, overall, than the NASB, with respect to manuscript base.

Accuracy and faithfulness, Roby.
Not readability.