Apparently my daughter is at a friend's house and it seems they've been sucked into the KJVO lie. Why????? I have to say that this couple is kind of gullable and jumps on weird bandwagons but really - the KJVO thing is SO easy to dispute - especially the arguments they are bringing up. My poor daughter hasn't been exposed to it and even though I've done quite a bit of study on it, I've not really discussed it with the kids much. I've been texting her the answers to the arguments they are bringing up (like Revelation 22:19 with tree vs. book) but I just said that if it's a debate going on, to come home. They won't listen. I know it. It saddens me.
-
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!
I wanna bang my head
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
- Status
Look at it this way...she has now been exposed to intolerant people & in the long run she will develop into a better Christian. This is how we contend for the faith sister.:jesus:
I personally don't allow that to be a point of contention in my house....its bad enough that people don't pick up a Bible at all...especially in our neck of the woods.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Well good for them!
Amazing that KJVO are accused of being "intolerant" when there are far more books written AGAINST the KJV and criticizing the belief that ANY Bible is infallible.
Now since Revelation 22:19 is "SO easy to dispute" (as a KJV rebuttal), explain the following:
*All of the Majority text readings have "EVEN SO, come Lord Jesus" in them. Siniaticus, Alexandrinus, NASB, NIV, Holman, ESV do not. Ditto for "Christ" and "You all" of verses 20-21.
*The RV and ASV read the end of Revelation with "with the saints" according to Siniaticus, and the NIV reads "Gods people". The 1995 NASB and 2001 ESV reject Siniaticus and follow the Alexandrian "with all" and reject "You". Hardly any of the modern versions agree with each other and the variant readings are found in only ONE TEXT each.
*The NASB and and ESV reject "AMEN" even though it is in the Siniaticus, and have it included in other editions.
*Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus, was missing Revelation 22:16-21. The standard teaching is that Erasmus went back to the Latin Vulgate for these verses and re-translated them into Greek. However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.)
Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts.
Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22, or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22. Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few).
Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages."
The reading of "book of life" is also found in the Coptic Boharic, the Arabic, the Speculum, Pseudo-Agustine and written as such in the Latin of Adrumentum 552, Andreas of Cappadocia, 614 Haaymo, Halberstadt, Latin 841. "Book of life" is found in the Greek manuscripts of # 296, 2049, and in the margin of 2067.
Libro (book) is the reading of the Latin mss. Codex Fuldensis (sixth century); Codex Karolinus (ninth century); Codex Oxoniensis (twelfth to thirteenth century); Codex Ulmensis (ninth century); Codex Uallicellanus (ninth century); Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century); and the corrector of Codex Parisinus (ninth century)."
Mid English Testimonies are These include Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587. "Book of life" is found in Young's, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the New KJV. It is also the reading of the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Reina Valera versions as well as its modern 1960 edition used throughout the Spanish speaking world.
Martin Luther's translation of 1545, using Greek texts before Stephanus' 1550 edition, also reads "book of life". I met a Russian pastor a couple years ago and asked him what his Russian Bible said here. He told me it reads book of life too. I also have a copy of the Modern Greek New Testament, used by the Orthodox churches in Greece today, printed in 1954 and the reading of Revelation 22:19 is "book of life".
Besides all these English, Spanish and Greek bibles, it has been confirmed that the following Bible versions also read "book of life": The Afrikaans Bible of 1953, the Albanian, the Basque New Testament (Navarro-Labourdin), the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Hungarian Karoli, the Icelandic Bible version, the Italian New Diodati, and the Douay-Rheims.
The Catholic versions and the Latin Vulgate also disagree among themselves, with Jerome's Vulgate and the 1950 Douay, and the Jerusalem Bible all reading "tree of life", while the older Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate both read "book of life".
*COMMON SENSE
If verse 19 were properly "TREE of life" then verse 18 would make NO SENSE" and it makes no sense the way the other translations read.
Verse 18 begins with a curse for anyone who adds to the BOOK, and the curses pronounced are curse FROM THE BOOK, NOT A TREE. Then following this same line of logic, verse 19 begins with "AND" "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Verse 19 "book of life" matches all of the other references in verses 18-19, and it matches Revelation 3:5, "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels", and Revelation 20:12.
So not only is there plenty of textual support for Revelation 22:19 "BOOK of life", historical support, there is the COMMON SENSE reading of the context. The critics of Revelation 22:19 don't follow their own rules or logic in their own modern versions, and there is FAR LESS support for "tree of life" then for BOOK.
Hope you explain this when "proving" to them that Revelation 22:19 is in "error".
They don't see how their belief, instead of building up faith in the Word, actually diminishes it.
Well, I'm of the other persuasion. While not KJVO, I am KJVP, and I believe that DIFFERENT versions of the Bible, versions that DO NOT agree with each other, versions that contain passages that other versions don't contain, etc.,..... yet people claim them ALL to be EQUALLY the Word of God (which, frankly, makes no sense, and is totally illogical) <-------I think THAT belief "instead of building up faith in the Word, actually diminishes it". IMHO, that belief causes more confusion/doubt than any KJVO person does.That has been my personal experience anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to go that direction, then let's ask which KJV is the correct version, because none of them agree 100% either- and we have never gotten an answer to that question...
Learning how other versions came about, how the Bible is translated from the original languages (that KJVO's deny are in existence!), and how things that are different can- indeed, be the same, brings clarity to the issue.
If you are comfortable with the KJV, by all means use it. But just because you are confused by MV's does not mean everyone else is.
Do you include the KJV in the group of versions that read differently?? How do KNOW the KJV is ALWAYS translated correctly? Can you compare it to the Greek and Hebrew? Or do you just take someone else's word for it? Don't you think THAT is illogical?
And please site some examples.
Do you include the KJV in the group of versions that read differently?? Yes
How do KNOW the KJV is ALWAYS translated correctly? I don't. But I also don't just assume it's incorrect, like some do.
Can you compare it to the Greek and Hebrew? No
Or do you just take someone else's word for it? Yes, just like the MV readers do.
Don't you think THAT is illogical? I posted what I think is illogical, but I'll repeat it for you. Here is a statement I've heard and read OVER and OVER:
" ALL Bible versions, the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, TNIV, ASV, HCSB, etc. are ALL EQUALLY the Word of God."
^^^^^Yet those same people agree that different versions include some passages, different versions leave those passages out, different versions are translated from different manuscripts that don't agree, have mistakes, etc.
Even a first grader knows that those differences exclude them from being "equally the Word of God". If you give two children a book, but leave a few pages out of one of the books, I guarantee you those two CHILDREN are smart enough to realize that the two books are not equally the same!
Listen, I told you I'm NOT arguing KJVO. But, I am arguing "common sense". The NIV, and those versions from the same manuscripts, and the KJV or NKJV, and other versions from those manuscripts, are NOT BOTH equally the Word of God! One is WRONG, the other is RIGHT..........that's NOT equal. They may both CONTAIN the Word of God, but either one translation ADDED to God's Word, or one translation left something OUT! Equal, they are not.
I truly cannot believe that simple fact is so hard to understand.
Now.........you may pick whatever version you want to use. I don't care, really, I don't. I have a LOT, I daresay most, Christian brothers and sisters who use MV's more than the KJV. However, I believe the KJV is translated from the most accurate manuscripts. That's my PERSONAL belief, and why I use it. Others may disagree, and that's their choice. One of us is wrong, but I'm not going to war over it. I'm simply saying that the argument that different versions are ALL THE SAME leads people to doubt them all! I've seen it. I've had people tell me that.
Now, I've said all I want to say. Agree with me or not. God bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
Can you read Greek or Hebrew? Do YOU compare it to the "originals"? How many of the critics AGAINST the KJV did you "take their word for it"? And which Greek and Hebrew should we go to? According to all KJVO critics, there are no perfect manuscripts, so then how can they say the KJV is in error when they can't even agree on which ones to compare it to? KJV is in error COMPARED TO WHAT?
If there existed today a hard copy of the originals, KJV critics would question it the same way they do now, and smash it on a mountain side. If God Himself told you He preserved ONE book, none of you KJV critics would believe it.
There is a distinct difference between being a KJV critic and a critic of KJVO. Be sure not to conflate the two.
Simple. Truth. Thank you for stating the oh-so-obvious.
You continue to misrepresent and distort the views of believers in the Scriptures that merely disagree with the opinions of men seen in a KJV-only theory.
There have been as many as 150 books promoting a man-made KJV-only theory and perhaps around 10 books answering KJV-only arguments.
You provide no sound evidence or documentation that supports your serious and extreme accusations against believers in what the Scriptures actually state and teach.
According to KJV-only advocates, there is in effect no preserved Scriptures in the original languages that can be used as a proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all translations including the KJV.
Are you in effect suggesting that there is no sound basis for which to claim perfection in the process involved in the making of the KJV as a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles and as a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages since a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning seems to try to make the KJV completely independent of its foundation of original language texts and its foundation as being a revision?
Do all KJV-only advocates agree concerning to what the KJV can be compared and upon what it was actually based?
Would someone please address this, and explain your "logic" in believing two DIFFERENT things can both be the same:
Thank you. I'll await someone's response................:BangHead:
Thank you. I'll await someone's response................:BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
Kids should be playing and having a good time; not arguing with other Christians--that's what baptistboard is for!
:laugh:
- Status