The KJB VS the usual suspects

[Logos1560]

You're giving us a watered-down Bible.

You make bogus, unproven assumptions in your false allegations against me. You do not prove that I advocate any so-called "watered-down Bible."

I stand for the absolute 100% purity of the words directly given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. According to scriptural truth, any words added by men and any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating would not be the absolutely pure words of God.

The Scriptures clearly teach that it would be just as wrong to add to those words as to take away from them.

Consistent, just measures/standards should be applied justly to decide whether words are added or taken away instead of mere presumption or assumption as evident in KJV-only reasoning. Perhaps KJV-only advocates will subjectively accept some words that were possibly added in order to try to rationalize or excuse their unproven accusations against other English Bibles.

Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words: lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Logos1560]

making Joseph Christ's father

Are you and other KJV-only advocates unaware of the fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles? The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65). The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

In English Bible translations, it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first had "Joseph" instead of "his father" at Luke 2:33.

Would you and other KJV-only advocates in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier good English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, blasphemous reading?

Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only advocates' accusations imply that the KJV is a translation of some Textus Receptus editions and a revision of some earlier English Bibles that were "perversions?" Does human KJV-only reasoning suggest that the varying Textus Receptus editions were based on corrupt Greek NT manuscripts since several if not most of those Greek NT manuscripts have the reading "his father" at Luke 2:33?

In their inconsistent attempts to allege or show corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in the KJV-only view's good or pure line or stream of Bibles?

 

[Logos1560]

If you would listed carefully to the things that were said, all your points were already addressed.
.

If you understood my scripturally-based points soundly, it would be clear that your video does not address all of them since it is clear that you do not apply consistently and justly the same exact measures/standards to the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and to the 1611 KJV that you attempt to apply unjustly to the making of post-1611 English Bible translations.

 

[37818]

@George Antonios,
The reason for this note, is right "off the bat" you misrepresent the NKJV footnotes. The NKJV footnotes are to inform the reader what is going on with the variant readings, NU, Nestle-Aland or United Bible Socienty Greek NT, M the Majority Greek NT. This is one of the must useful features of the NKJV.

The NWT and the others NIV, ESV, NASB use, for the most part, the same NU Greek NTs. Which is, I think the important point of your video. And then there are issues of translation choices, where the NKJV has some common problems.

 

[Yeshua1]

What about them?

They are using a common Bible that all read and understand!

 

[George Antonios]

@George Antonios,
The reason for this note, is right "off the bat" you misrepresent the NKJV footnotes. The NKJV footnotes are to inform the reader what is going on with the variant readings, NU, Nestle-Aland or United Bible Socienty Greek NT, M the Majority Greek NT. This is one of the must useful features of the NKJV.

The NWT and the others NIV, ESV, NASB use, for the most part, the same NU Greek NTs. Which is, I think the important point of your video. And then there are issues of translation choices, where the NKJV has some common problems.

You misrepresent the serpent in the garden of Eden. When he said yeah, hath God said he wasn't planting doubt concerning the words of God, no, he was informing her concerning variant readings.

 

[George Antonios]

Are you and other KJV-only advocates unaware of the fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles? The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65). The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

In English Bible translations, it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first had "Joseph" instead of "his father" at Luke 2:33.

Would you and other KJV-only advocates in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier good English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, blasphemous reading?

Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only advocates' accusations imply that the KJV is a translation of some Textus Receptus editions and a revision of some earlier English Bibles that were "perversions?" Does human KJV-only reasoning suggest that the varying Textus Receptus editions were based on corrupt Greek NT manuscripts since several if not most of those Greek NT manuscripts have the reading "his father" at Luke 2:33?

In their inconsistent attempts to allege or show corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in the KJV-only view's good or pure line or stream of Bibles?

At the end of the day, it's all obfuscation.
You're giving us a watered-down Bible.
That's the end point, and that's all that matters.

 

[37818]

You misrepresent the serpent in the garden of Eden. When he said yeah, hath God said he wasn't planting doubt concerning the words of God, no, he was informing her concerning variant readings.

No. The serpent called to question what God said with a lie. The NKJV textual footnotes giving the truth about said variants. God's actual words are at stake.

 

[George Antonios]

No. The serpent called to question what God said with a lie.

yea, hath God said is not a lie. It's a question that casts doubt.
Eve, bless her heart, falls for the bait and changes surely die to lest ye die.
That's the first variant reading ever.
And Paul told us the church was like Eve.
And here we are today, with the church herself introducing "variant readings".
We really are sheep...

 

[37818]

yea, hath God said is not a lie. It's a question that casts doubt.
Eve, bless her heart, falls for the bait and changes surely die to lest ye die.
That's the first variant reading ever.
And Paul told us the church was like Eve.
And here we are today, with the church herself introducing "variant readings".
We really are sheep...

Seriously? Genesis 3:4, has the serpent's lie, "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: . . ." John 8:44, ". . . the devil, . . . 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. . . ."

 

[George Antonios]

Seriously? Genesis 3:4, has the serpent's lie, "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: . . ." John 8:44, ". . . the devil, . . . 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. . . ."

As if you're not discrete enough to note that I twice limited my comments to Genesis 3:1.

 

[Yeshua1]

yea, hath God said is not a lie. It's a question that casts doubt.
Eve, bless her heart, falls for the bait and changes surely die to lest ye die.
That's the first variant reading ever.
And Paul told us the church was like Eve.
And here we are today, with the church herself introducing "variant readings".
We really are sheep...

KJVO brings division within the body, and cast doubts upon the word of God!

 

[George Antonios]

KJVO brings division within the body, and cast doubts upon the word of God!

You're right:
Touting ONE HISTORIC version for all is divisive and casts doubt on the word of God.
Touting MULTIPLE MODERN versions however is unifying and doesn't cast doubt on the word of God.

What I wouldn't do to get your likes to spend 2 weeks in an Islamic country to test your ivory palace theories...

 

[Yeshua1]

You're right:
Touting ONE HISTORIC version for all is divisive.
Touting MULTIPLE MODERN versions however is unifying.

God has NEVER authorized just one translation to be used!

 

[George Antonios]

God has NEVER authorized just one translation to be used!

I never said he did. Who are you arguing against?

Besides, God is not the author of confusion.

 

[George Antonios]

One version = united USA
Many versions = divided USA

 

[George Antonios]

I'll tell you what the real reason is most of you reject the KJVO position.
Most likely some admittedly over-zealous and therefore possibly offensive KJVO guy early on in his Christian experience ruffled your older sanctified, more intellectual, feathers. So you blew up like an indignant peacock.
And now you live-out that experience and militate against the KJVO because pride forces you to do so as you're committed now.
Some of you would be amenable to the position and see its merits, but you'll die snubbing it rather than correct your over-reaction to that KJVO-nutcase's over-zeal; not to mention all the flack you'll know you'll face since you yourself dished it out.

 

[37818]

As if you're not discrete enough to note that I twice limited my comments to Genesis 3:1.

Called to question as to what did God say? And I noted "with a lie" which I was referring to Genesis 3:4.
The real problem, for every real KJV variant from God's word the other versions fix they introduce 10 or more variants from God's word where the KJV has it right!

 

[37818]

KJVO brings division within the body, and cast doubts upon the word of God!

No. Those who hold the KJOnly possition are taking a stand against the division caused by so called modern versions with a myriad supposed corrections to God's word.

 

[Logos1560]

I'll tell you what the real reason is most of you reject the KJVO position.
.

You do not speak for believers who wisely choose not to accept blindly erroneous human KJV-only reasoning/teaching. You evidently do not know the real reasons or else you improperly try to put words in the mouths of others that they do not state or try to put words in their minds that they do not believe.

The modern KJV-only position is soundly rejected because it is not taught in the Scriptures, because some aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching conflict with clear scriptural truths, because it depends upon use of fallacies [false arguments], because it makes use of unjust divers measures [an abomination to the LORD], because it contradicts the wisdom from God above by showing partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics/priests in 1611, because it is a proven fact that there have been actual errors in KJV editions, because the KJV itself was based on multiple, textually-varying original-language sources and on multiple, textually-varying pre-1611 English Bibles including the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, because the KJV translators soundly rejected the unsound arguments for one perfect translation, along with more reasons.

Human KJV-only reasoning is proud and arrogant as it rejects a just application of clear scriptural truths that would expose its errors. KJV-onlyism is an unsound over-reaction.