KJVO Lies

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The English language has continued to evolve since 1611. The Elizabethan tongue is not the language spoken today.
--------------------------------------------------

It is the Bible, and the English of my Bible that I hold in my very hands today, preserved perfectly. The english in the bible is easy to understand. It is our English language! You may not like the style, or the archaic words of it, but that doesn't make it difficult to read. If it was, I would not be able to understand it, and many others wouldn't either. It doesn't take much effort to open up a dictionary, or ask someone else what the archaic words mean.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I see no support, scriptural or historical, for making this statement exclusive to the KJV, or any other translation.
--------------------------------------------------

Can't see something if you deny it. The support, scriptural and historical has been given, but you choose not to see it.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Michelle said "In our language of English."

But, AGAIN, the KJV differs from everything prior to it, even the texts (in other languages) it was translated from. How is this "preservation"?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
But, AGAIN, the KJV differs from everything prior to it, even the texts (in other languages) it was translated from. How is this "preservation"?
--------------------------------------------------

You are incorrect, and feel free to show me otherwise.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "You are incorrect, and feel free to show me otherwise."

Pick up a 1611 reprint. The KJV translators themselves noted many places where they deviated from the actual words of the Hebrew and Greek, and they refrained from mentioning many others. Ed Edwards has posted many examples. I will post some later when I have my reprint in front of me.

As well, this link documents many such changes:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

(insert sound of michelle's entire argument imploding)

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
It doesn't take much effort to open up a dictionary, or ask someone else what the archaic words mean.

That is not sufficient reason to doctrinally hold to a ban on any other translation.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
The support, scriptural and historical has been given, but you choose not to see it.

There has been NO scriptural support whatsoever that supports the docrinal view that there is to be only one translation. None. Absolutely none. If there were, I'd be the first to accept it, and accept it gladly.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
That is not sufficient reason to doctrinally hold to a ban on any other translation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have made my reasons clear as to why I reject the other versions.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I have made my reasons clear as to why I reject the other versions.

Yes, and they're personal reasons for you, which is fine, and which I support your right to do. YOU are welcome to stick to the KJV, or any other translation, that you see fit. So am I. YOU, however, cross the line of false doctrine when you require that everyone else adhere to the same as a scriptural requirement.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
michelle, how can we know that verse 37 wasn't added sometime after Acts was written, and God corrected that addition by taking it back out by his providence/guidance and care?

This verse is in more than 12 MSS plus 27 were cited as evidenced by the early church fathers.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James version in which many small changes were made. These changes were of five kinds: 1. Greater and more regular use of italics; 2. minor changes in the text; 3. the adoption of modern spelling; 4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and, 5. correction of printers' errors. This edition soon came to be known as "The Oxford Standard" edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers. The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes. The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James version of 1611.
--------------------------------------------------


Thank you Natters, for providing the link.

But, I hope that this is a joke. You honestly think these are the same differences and reasons for the differences as the mv's? You have not provided anything that remotely compares to the differences we see in mv's. I do not have time tonight to go over this. But I will examine the article and let you know what I think. From what I have read so far, it is not very convincing.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
michelle said "Because God preserved this scripture. The corrupt texts underlying the mv's are cause for this deletion."

No, perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not asking you to restate your conclusion, I'm asking about your premise. I'm asking how you know that it wasn't an addition that God corrected.

I agree with Michelle. I answered my other post to you concerning Acts 8:37. MVs deleted this verse. Why?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
Because God preserved this scripture. The corrupt texts underlying the mv's are cause for this deletion.

There's no historical support to indicate that the non-TR texts are "corrupt". If one insists that there are corrupted texts, it is more likely that the TR is "corrupt", since it is preceded by the other texts by hundreds of years. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the time of Christ, support the OT of the Alexandrian texts. I suppose the KJVO crowd is going to insist that the Dead Sea Scrolls are "corrupt" as well.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
YOU, however, cross the line of false doctrine when you require that everyone else adhere to the same as a scriptural requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't make you use the KJB. You are free to use any version you wish. I am not your boss. You are also free to believe what you believe on this issue. But what I have been told is that I must accept the other versions as Gods words. I only regard them as containing most of God's words, but not all of them. So those versions, are not my authority, nor could they be and I must reject them.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
There's no historical support to indicate that the non-TR texts are "corrupt". If one insists that there are corrupted texts, it is more likely that the TR is "corrupt", since it is preceded by the other texts by hundreds of years. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the time of Christ, support the OT of the Alexandrian texts. I suppose the KJVO crowd is going to insist that the Dead Sea Scrolls are "corrupt" as well.
--------------------------------------------------

If they are different from what we have always had, then I must reject those too. God is not doing a new thing today. He is not giving us lost scriptures, or taking away scriptures that the church has always known and cherished. The devil however, will come in the end times, to deceive many people with lying signs and wonders.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Johnv:
There's no historical support to indicate that the non-TR texts are "corrupt".

The History disagrees with you. Earliest Church fathers knew 2 oldest known MSS are corrupted, then they ceased to use them. They were discontinued hereafter.

 

[HankD]

But, I hope that this is a joke. You honestly think these are the same differences and reasons for the differences as the mv's? You have not provided anything that remotely compares to the differences we see in mv's. I do not have time tonight to go over this. But I will examine the article and let you know what I think. From what I have read so far, it is not very convincing.

wrong answer michelle.
The issue is neither the quantity or the quality of the differences. The various revisions and editions of the KJV of the Bible contain several hundred differences even within the closed loop from 1613 through 1769 and also the long standing differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions.

The issue is this: God is INCAPABLE of even one error no matter how small. If the AV1611 edition vs the Blayney 1769 revision had only ONE difference then one of them is NOT the Word of God since (as we had been told month after month, although no more lately) Things which are different are not the same.

Here are a couple one of which I already posted:

1769 KJV Matthew 16:16 ... Thou art the Christ...
1611 KJV Matthew 16:16 ... Thou art Christ...

Which are the “pure” words of God and which did the Spirit of God guide the translators to write and how do you know?

1769 KJV Deuteronomy 5:29 ... keep all my commandments...
1611 KJV Deuteronomy 5:29 ... keep my commandments...

Again, which are the “pure” words of God and how do you know?

I can tell you and I can tell you how I know: Refer back to he original language source documents.

Please don’t lecture me again about how I should know better.

After all, it is NEVER wrong to state the truth and “let the chips fall where they will” as many here are so willing to do.

Now, according to the KJVO principle of the "poisoned well" theory, since the 1611KJV was wrong by omitting these two very important words, then it (the well-head) is poisoned/corrupted and thus all other editions and versions downstream.


HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The History disagrees with you. Earliest Church fathers knew 2 oldest known MSS are corrupted, then they ceased to use them. They were discontinued hereafter.

History is written in books (or now online).
Please cite the source of this data.
I say this because it seems to directly
contradict what i've read and seen.

The nKJV introduction says:

"However some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission."

BTW, the "earliest church fathers" could not
have known of these two sources, as they
came some 200 years after the earliest church
fathers." So it appears you parrot someone
who knows not of what they are talking about.

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:

Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Which are the “pure” words of God and which did the Spirit of God guide the translators to write and how do you know?
--------------------------------------------------

The one God has made evident it is. (John 16,17)


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Now, according to the KJVO principle of the "poisoned well" theory, since the 1611KJV was wrong by omitting these two very important words, then it (the well-head) is poisoned/corrupted and thus all other editions and versions downstream.
--------------------------------------------------

It is evident that it wasn't a mass of chaos and division in that time about it. Today we see multiple varieties of versions, all different, and all different to the standard that has been the English Bible for hundreds of years. It is not the same thing. Today we have unqualified people telling us what the origional languages really say, and what they think they say, and what they "thought" the writer was saying. The tranlsation committees are continually changing thier minds. The whole stream of the mv's is filled with things that are not Biblical, and not in an orderly and structured fashion, but the opposite that of the KJB, not only in the texts and methods, but that which is chaos, confusion, doubt, division, strife, false labels, <attack on Bibles snipped> God is not the author of confusion, or lies.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ August 05, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]