The KJB VS the usual suspects

[Logos1560]

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.

Your repeating of your false allegation does not make it supposedly become true. You continue to bear false witness in disobedience to the Scriptures. KJV-only advocates do not obey clear commands in the one imperfect English translation that they claim to accept and defend.

 

[robycop3]

Let me rest your mind from now: no, I don't have a verse telling me specifically that the King James Bible is the word of God.
This video begins with a brief intro of the usual suspects: NIV, ESV, NASV and builds on the premise that those versions change the KJB in the same way that the New World Translation does (the version of Jehovah's false witnesses).
It compares verses and I declare why I, as a native Arabic speaker, believe the King James Bible over all others.
Love it or hate it:

What's a "KJB"? A new Russian secret police ?

I neither hate the KJV nor the video (Nor you, of course), although it's mostly the "usual suspects"; the same ole KJVO horse feathers, largely derived from Dr. Wilkinson's & Riplinger's hooey.

 

[robycop3]

That point was addressed twice in the video.
Also, I don't know if you've ever taught in a public setting, but I've more than once encountered a problem because the versions the people had didn't match what the KJB was saying.

That's because you, & them, have, for some strange reason, made the KJV(NOT "KJB"!) THE standard English Bible translation, without any directive from GOD to do so.

The KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support, a fact which automatically makes it false. (Unless, as a RC does, you believe that "traditions" carry the same weight as Scripture.)

 

[robycop3]

It's incredible that you guys can see those changes from "child" to "servant", erasing Acts 8:37, changing "are saved" to "being saved", making Joseph Christ's father, chaging "firstborn" to "son", taking away the "blood", etc. and actually sit there and defend those changes.
The only reason is that bitter conceit is greater for many than the glory of God and purity of his words.

Sir, the KJV calls Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2:41 41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

And Mary calls Joseph His father in Luke 2:48 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

I explained the "whys" of this previously, but in case you missed it - In that time/place, under both Jewish & Roman law, a man was considered the father of his wife's children born during their marriage, even if she gave birth on her wedding day. Thus, for all human legal purposes, Joseph was considered the legal earthly father of Jesus, being responsible for His upkeep during His earthly childhood. Mary was not some bimbo; she knew this. And please note that "father" is lower-case in V.48, but capitalized in V.49. Mary & Joseph both knew Jesus had been conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT, but both Mary & Luke, in the verses I cited above, knew that Joseph was considered as Jesus' father according to the law of the land, if not in reality.

 

[robycop3]

It's incredible that you guys can see those changes from "child" to "servant", erasing Acts 8:37, changing "are saved" to "being saved", making Joseph Christ's father, chaging "firstborn" to "son", taking away the "blood", etc. and actually sit there and defend those changes.
The only reason is that bitter conceit is greater for many than the glory of God and purity of his words.

'Tis for the same reasons you ignore the "Easter" goof in the KJV's Acts 12:4 & the ADDITION of the words "and shalt be" in the KJV's Rev. 16:5, violating God's command to not ADD to His word.

 

[robycop3]

If you would listed carefully to the things that were said, all your points were already addressed.
This thread is about the video and its framework.
You wish to debate manuscript evidence, open a thread.
Also there are many assumptions in your argument that I reject.
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.

No; what MATTERS is that the KJVO myth is clearly a false doctrine, largely propagated by booksellers wanting to make some $$ by peddling their wares, with TRUTH cast aside.

 

[robycop3]

@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.

Not to mention the AV 1611 is chock-full of such notes !

 

[robycop3]

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.

Know what "Bah ! Humbug !" means"

At that time, there were NO readings, variant or otherwise!

Sneaky Snake was saying, in so many words, that God had lied to A&E.

 

[robycop3]

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.

I reject the KJVO position because it's CLEARLY FALSE, & HAS BEEN PROVENFALSE !

Just because a given version doesn't match the KJV doesn't mean that version is corrupt. That's equal to a Chevy lover saying all Fords are junk.

The KJV has its share of goofs & booboos; I pointed out a couple in a previous post in this thread. (Remember, ALL Bible translations in whatever language are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.)

Besides, the KJV is not in the English style in common use worldwide. It was made for the British of the 17th century, just as the Model T was made for the roads of the 1910s.

 

[robycop3]

Let me rest your mind from now: no, I don't have a verse telling me specifically that the King James Bible is the word of God.
This video begins with a brief intro of the usual suspects: NIV, ESV, NASV and builds on the premise that those versions change the KJB in the same way that the New World Translation does (the version of Jehovah's false witnesses).
It compares verses and I declare why I, as a native Arabic speaker, believe the King James Bible over all others.
Love it or hate it:

Dr. A, those other versions don't change the KJV (NOT "KJB"!) at all; they stand alone, as all Bible translations do. As the makers of the KJV are all deceased, it cannot be changed, any more than a Shakespeare play can be.

 

[37818]

I reject the KJVO position because it's CLEARLY FALSE, & HAS BEEN PROVENFALSE !

In your mind.

 

[37818]

No; what MATTERS is that the KJVO myth is clearly a false doctrine, largely propagated by booksellers wanting to make some $$ by peddling their wares, with TRUTH cast aside.

That is what you are doing, casting the truth asided. I do not read where you defend the correct readings of our English translations of God's word. Against the one Easter reading for Passover is the best it seems that you can do.

 

[robycop3]

In your mind.

Newp - in TRUTH.

 

[robycop3]

That is what you are doing, casting the truth asided. I do not read where you defend the correct readings of our English translations of God's word. Against the one Easter reading for Passover is the best it seems that you can do.

There's "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil", in 1 Tim. 6:10. There's the aforementioned ADDITION of the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. There's the OMISSION of "through Our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

I can make a list of KJV goofs a yard long, but that's not the theme of this thread, which is Dr. A's video & subsequent remarks.

Please clue us in if you find ANY Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.

 

[37818]

Newp - in TRUTH.

Really? Why would you knowingly believe something you thought was not true? No one does. I agree that KJO is a mistaken view. My complant is, I do not see where you are defending a correct reading of the word of God other than Passover is a better translation than what you call a goof.

 

[robycop3]

Really? Why would you knowingly believe something you thought was not true? No one does. I agree that KJO is a mistaken view. My complant is, I do not see where you are defending a correct reading of the word of God other than Passover is a better translation than what you call a goof.

This thread isn't about defending correct readings. It's about Dr. A's video & his subsequent remarks. Naturally, the discussion has shifted to a pro & anti-KJVO discourse.

But, to satisfy your questioning-the CORRECT reading of part of 1 Tim. 6:10 is, "The love of silver (money) is A root of ALL SORTS of evil."

And Rev. 16:5 reads correctly without the extra words "and shalt be" added to it-words that don't appear in that verse in ANY known ancient ms. of Revelation.(I could go on all day with this.)

 

[37818]

There's "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil", in 1 Tim. 6:10. There's the aforementioned ADDITION of the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. There's the OMISSION of "through Our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

I can make a list of KJV goofs a yard long, but that's not the theme of this thread, which is Dr. A's video & subsequent remarks.

Please clue us in if you find ANY Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.

Well, got to take them one at a time.
Revelation 16:5, "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." I so noted in my KJV that it should read "the Holy One." You simply point out the reading is wrong without saying what it should be.
Jude 1:25, "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Which is 78.4% of the texts not having "through our Lord Jesus Christ Christ" the 21.6% of text where God is Savior "through our Lord Jesus Christ." That is so wrong, Jesus Christ is God, Isaiah 43:11.

 

[George Antonios]

I reject the KJVO position because it's CLEARLY FALSE, & HAS BEEN PROVENFALSE !

Says a man with no perfect Bible anywhere to point to.

 

[robycop3]

Well, got to take them one at a time.
Revelation 16:5, "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." I so noted in my KJV that it should read "the Holy One." You simply point out the reading is wrong without saying what it should be.

So, it's a goof in the KJV.
Sir, while I recognize your attempts to correct me, you can't tell me how I should post. I shall post according to the view God has given me.

Jude 1:25, "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Which is 78.4% of the texts not having "through our Lord Jesus Christ Christ" the 21.6% of text where God is Savior "through our Lord Jesus Christ." That is so wrong, Jesus Christ is God, Isaiah 43:11.

But WHOM did Yahweh authorize to do the saving ? JESUS, of course ! To be saved, one must come to JESUS. Only then can one come to The Father. So it is NOT wrong. YOU are.

 

[robycop3]

Says a man with no perfect Bible anywhere to point to.

Do YOU have any perfect translation to point to ?