The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[Logos1560]

All of your charges against the KJV are immaterial.

What charges? You fail to prove your assertion to be true.

You do not quote and deal with any specific statement that I made concerning the KJV that you actually prove to be incorrect or wrong.

You present no verifiable, objective information that proves what I have stated concerning the KJV or concerning KJV-only reasoning to be wrong.

 

[Garrett20]

(1) Because there is no evidence it was part of the Greek manuscript tradition.

(2) It does not even show up in the Greek until ca. 1300 years later.

(3) It does not show up in any Old Latin manuscripts until the 7th century.

(4) The two oldest Vulgate manuscripts (i.e. Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus) omit it.

(5) It is not found in the Peshitta.

And yet I still believe in the Trinity.

Even Byzantine Textform advocates (such as myself) have a very difficult time defending the Comma’s authenticity. It not a part of the Majority text either. It’s TR-specific and likely came from the Latin tradition.

 

[Garrett20]

(1) It is the same thing I point out. I have highlighted the Greek in blue. Again the difference is only one letter.

ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας

That is the same thing I posted above. Here it is again.

The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
The CT has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

Note the sigma on the end. That bigger difference you of which you speak is because of only one letter.

The Net Bible also points out one is in the genitive case and the other is in the nominative case (highlighted in green). The two phrase are exactly alike except for that one letter and that accounts for the change in translation.


(2) The Net Bible cites A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition by Bruce M. Metzger. Metzger makes the same points.

"The difference between the AV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,”

and the RSV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism. Does the Angelic Hymn close with εὐδοκία or εὐδοκίας?

The genitive case, which is the more difficult reading, is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a palaeographical oversight (at the end of a line εὐδοκίας would differ from εὐδοκία only by the presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point, for which it might have been taken – thus ⲉⲩⲇⲟⲕⲓⲁⲥ)."


(3) In Mounce's grammar (3rd ed) at the beginning of each chapter there is a section called Exegetical Insight. At the start of chapter seven this text (i.e. Luke 2:14) is examined. It states:

"'Peace on earth, good will toward men' (Luke 2:14, KJV). You have probably all received Christmas cards containing this part of the angels’ song to the shepherds on the fields of Bethlehem. But most modern translations read differently: 'on earth peace to men on whom his [God’s] favor rests' (NIV); 'and on earth peace among those whom he [God] favors' (NRSV). The difference between the KJV and the others is the difference between the nominative and the genitive.

The Greek manuscripts used to translate the KJV contain εὐδοκία (nominative), whereas the older manuscripts used to translate the modern versions contain εὐδοκίας (genitive) —literally translated, 'of good will' or 'characterized by [God’s] good pleasure.' In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of the birth of Christ is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favor with God by believing in his Son Jesus (see Romans 5:1). What a difference a single letter can make in the meaning of the text!"

Thank you, Origen. I prefer the Byzantine reading.

 

[church mouse guy]

This thread was not at all about supposedly banning the KJV. You jump to a bogus, incorrect opinion.

This thread is entitled that the KJV is a Model T. That's nuts.

 

[church mouse guy]

This thread was not at all about supposedly banning the KJV. You jump to a bogus, incorrect opinion.

That's what you say. This is not the first rodeo with Roby.

 

[Conan]

He's dead.

Actually, some of his pioneering translations will have made it all the way into the ESV. ESV, RSV, RV, 1769KJV, 1611 KJV, RHEIMS, GENEVA, BISHOPS, GREAT, MATTHEWS, TYNDALE.

 

[robycop3]

I challenge you and Roby to post your identities.
List the churches you have pastored along with the time periods you have served.
List all the ministries God has authorized you to begin and shepherd.

For there are men of the highest calling, with tremendous responsibility, with ministries that God has greatly blessed and sustained, that you strive to discredit.

Let's compare your fruit to there's.

First, I'm not KJVO. Nor am I an advocate.

Now, here is the "issue" I have with you and Roby.......... You especially. ........You are ALL OVER the internet on numerous sites CONSTANTLY posting about the KJVO issue.

You have been doing this for years. It seems like you are obsessed with the topic.......or......keeping this topic alive helps your book sales......... or your ego. You do realize how egotistical and condescending you come across to others, don't you?

Either way, people are getting tired of listening to you and Roby constantly beating a dead horse. Do you not realize this? Instead of informing people, you have become annoying. It's like if this topic went away, your lives would be over.

Have you NOTHING better to do than spend your life copy and pasting constantly on internet forums? Maybe you need some therapy? Seriously.

There are new KJVOs & new Christians who are liable to be deceived by the KJVO myth, who should be made aware that it's false. remember, we have a Christian D-U-T-Y to expose false doctrines of faith/worship.

My calling from God is to expose false doctrines & cults. I work against many others, not just the KJVO myth. I work against JWs, LDS, SDAs, among other cults, & against preterism, "regenerational baptism", the false branches of pentecostalism, & many other false religious practices, and so does Logos, if you bother to read around the net. But here, it's the KJVO myth which is our focus.

 

[robycop3]

This thread is entitled that the KJV is a Model T. That's nuts.

You've just shown your amazing reading comprehension skills !

 

[rsr]

DIt is still a solid translation. It is the work of Tyndale plus a committee of the leading scholars of the English Reformation. .

I would never denigrate the work of Tyndale, to whom all the English-speaking world is indebted. But he had a different mindset than KJVO adherents. Tyndale revised his New Testament twice
in his short life; had he lived longer he might have made further revisions.

While the KJV committees include some scholars, "the leading scholars of the English Reformation" more aptly describes Tyndale and the authors of the Geneva Bible, who were hunted and harried by the high church establishment.. And Hugh Broughton, the leading Hebraist in England, was pointedly not invited to participate in the KJV.

 

[rlvaughn]

I don't think he's succeeding in convincing many people of anything other than that he has an agenda.

When certain posters cannot abide a passing positive reference to the KJV without piling on, I must say I will keep my skepticism.

 

[Logos1560]

This thread is entitled that the KJV is a Model T. That's nuts.

You fail to prove your assertion to be true. It is not a comparison that I make.

Nevertheless, it is a verifiable fact that the KJV is a 400 year old English translation with some archaic language.

You overreact to that's poster comparison.

 

[Logos1560]

They DO allege...
that someone who spends every waking hour of every decade of their life inventing reasons to scoff at and besmirch and malign the KJV...like you and Roby do...
hate the KJV...
That, is an assertion I'll defend.

You fail to defend your own unproven assertion and allegation, and you especially fail to prove it to be true. Yes, you allege, but you do not prove. There is a big difference between the two.

You do not prove that I supposedly invent any reasons to malign the KJV.

You have not answered nor refuted any of my accurate observations concerning the KJV and concerning a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view. I present accurate, verifiable information concerning editions of the KJV.

You fail to prove that I supposedly hate the KJV. You seem to be the one inventing bogus allegations that you do not prove to be true.

I read and accept the KJV as what it actually is.

 

[church mouse guy]

You fail to prove your assertion to be true. It is not a comparison that I make.

Nevertheless, it is a verifiable fact that the KJV is a 400 year old English translation with some archaic language.

You overreact to that's poster comparison.

No, the comparison is idiotic. Furthermore, KJV Only is not cultic as Roby claims--I don't know if you are calling the exclusive use of KJV cultic. KJV is written in modern English, as everyone concedes.

 

[robycop3]

No, the comparison is idiotic. Furthermore, KJV Only is not cultic as Roby claims--I don't know if you are calling the exclusive use of KJV cultic. KJV is written in modern English, as everyone concedes.

I didn't say it's actually cultic - I said the foundation book of the current KJVO myth was written by a cult official, which it was.

And the KJV is no more in modern English than the Model T is a modern car.

 

[xlsdraw]

You fail to defend your own unproven assertion and allegation, and you especially fail to prove it to be true. Yes, you allege, but you do not prove. There is a big difference between the two.

You do not prove that I supposedly invent any reasons to malign the KJV.

You have not answered nor refuted any of my accurate observations concerning the KJV and concerning a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view. I present accurate, verifiable information concerning editions of the KJV.

You fail to prove that I supposedly hate the KJV. You seem to be the one inventing bogus allegations that you do not prove to be true.

I read and accept the KJV as what it actually is.

You cowardly chose not to accept my challenge.

 

[xlsdraw]

I didn't say it's actually cultic - I said the foundation book of the current KJVO myth was written by a cult official, which it was.

And the KJV is no more in modern English than the Model T is a modern car.

Who are you accusing here?

 

[xlsdraw]

There are new KJVOs & new Christians who are liable to be deceived by the KJVO myth, who should be made aware that it's false. remember, we have a Christian D-U-T-Y to expose false doctrines of faith/worship.

My calling from God is to expose false doctrines & cults. I work against many others, not just the KJVO myth. I work against JWs, LDS, SDAs, among other cults, & against preterism, "regenerational baptism", the false branches of pentecostalism, & many other false religious practices, and so does Logos, if you bother to read around the net. But here, it's the KJVO myth which is our focus.

Thus far, you have also not accepted my challenge. List your ministerial history.

 

[church mouse guy]

I didn't say it's actually cultic - I said the foundation book of the current KJVO myth was written by a cult official, which it was.

And the KJV is no more in modern English than the Model T is a modern car.

Well you did say that it is cultic, and your claim that the KJV is not modern English was disproven in one of your last threads on this subject. What credentials do you have in what is modern English and what is not? I suppose that you think that your Model A is a modern car. You actually said that it was your calling from God to expose false doctrines and cults and that you work against many others not just the KJVO myth.

There are new KJVOs & new Christians who are liable to be deceived by the KJVO myth, who should be made aware that it's false. remember, we have a Christian D-U-T-Y to expose false doctrines of faith/worship.

My calling from God is to expose false doctrines & cults. I work against many others, not just the KJVO myth. I work against JWs, LDS, SDAs, among other cults, & against preterism, "regenerational baptism", the false branches of pentecostalism, & many other false religious practices, and so does Logos, if you bother to read around the net. But here, it's the KJVO myth which is our focus.

#147 robycop3, Yesterday at 4:07 PM

 

[Conan]

KJV is written in modern English, as everyone concedes.

The KJV is Early Modern English.

1 Anglo-Saxon or Old English. Anglo-Saxon scriptures
2 Middle English. Chaucer, Wycliffe Bible
3 Early modern English (or archaic modern english). Tyndale-KJV
4 Current Modern English. Today

 

[Logos1560]

You cowardly chose not to accept my challenge.

Your so-called challenge was improper, and it could be regarded to attempt to shift the burden of proof as you try in effect to demand that I supposedly prove myself innocent instead of you proving your unproven allegations against me to be true. It is not my responsibility to prove the negative. The Scriptures do not teach that believers should compare themselves by themselves or among themselves (2 Cor. 10:12) in order to determine which statements are true. Claimed results do not prove a person's or a group's teaching to be true as a number of cults have a good number of followers.

Your posts have improperly and unkindly attacked me personally with negative, unproven smear tactics while I properly attempt to point out the problems with your incorrect allegations. Your allegation of being "cowardly" is yet another example of your insulting, unproven personal attacks. Your challenge would not prove my observations or points concerning human KJV-only reasoning/teaching to be incorrect so it would not answer nor refute them. You and a couple others have attempted to put words in my mouth and motives in my heart that are not mine such as the false accusation that I supposedly hate the KJV and that I am supposedly demeaning it. From the posts in this thread, it would seem that those attacking me are more guilty of attempts to demean and smear than that they prove against me. You refuse to provide any direct quotations from my posts where I am supposedly guilty of what you allege.

I nowhere claim to be perfect nor superior, but I do try to back up my points with sound documented evidence, with verifiable facts, and with a just application of scriptural truths. I attempt to honor my burden of proof and back up my positive assertions. I try to focus on addressing statements and points even though I am being personally and falsely accused of things that are not true.

Does your own negative assertion apply to your failure to defend your unproven allegation against me? You yourself asserted that you would defend what you alleged against me, but you have not proven what you claimed to be true.

Are you demonstrating that you are unable to answer or refute my actual points concerning the KJV and concerning KJV-only so you divert with attempts to attack me personally?