The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[Dave G]

Apparently you partially misunderstood me. The old Scriptural mss. are accurate, of course, but not every TRANSLATION of them is. We've pointed out some obvious goofs in the KJV, & we could do so with most other English translations, if that was the name of the game.

Now, as for your question, my answer is NO. There are evidently some very poor ones out there, which God certainly wasn't behind, such as the JWs' New World translation, & Blanco's Clear Word Bible (intended for SDAs)

There are some rather groddy but legitimate ones, such as "The Mesasage" or the NIV. But I don't care for any paraphrased or "dynamic equivalence" versions.

Apparently.
But I thank you, sir, for the underlined.

Now for my next question:
"KJV" or not, what are God's very words here?

" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, AV )
" For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, NKJV )
" For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, Geneva 1599 )

" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, ESV ).
" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, NASB )
" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, NIV )

" And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." ( 1 John 5:7, ASV )



Which did GOD inspire John to write, and which one(s) are paraphrases, since they obviously differ?
Please keep in mind the very small differences between "that" and "which", "record" and "witness", and "Spirit" and "Ghost" in the first three.

Can you pick out God's very words by how they "resonate" in your spirit ( Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:11, John 8:47, John 10:27 ), or do they all state "basically the same thing"?

Do you understand why there are differences...
and do you even care that there are , in some cases, vast differences when certain passages are compared in the various English translations, Roby?

Most who post in these translation threads, don't appear to, from my perspective.

 

[Dave G]

Still, NO Scriptural support for KJVO !

No Scriptural support for any one English translation of the Greek and Hebrew into another...
I agree.

No Scriptural support for a believer being concerned, or even "valiant" ( zealous ) for God's very words, like David ( read the Psalms ) was ?
For the need to recognize God's preservation of His word, down through the ages, for the benefit of His children... those who would believe on His Son?
For God to be highly respected and His power and authority to be greatly feared, for promising to curse someone for adding to or taking away from His words ( Revelation 22:18-19 )?
For God to pronounce those who twist His words and transform them into another gospel, as accursed ( Galatians 1:8-9 )?

That is quite another matter, Roby.

Each and every word is important ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ), not simply man's paraphrasing of them as "good enough", or, "that's what it essentially says".
Each and every word belongs to God, is entrusted to His children, and is to be treated with more respect than even the most respected man's words, and should be handled very carefully.

Do you understand the gravity of the situation?
Would you be offended if someone twisted your words, or took them out of context?

If so, then imagine, if you will, how God will treat those who mangle and mishandle His holy words.

If you're willing to consider, or even capable of answering any of the above in the affirmative, then I think that you might come to a conclusion as to why some "KJVO" / "KJVP" are so protective of using a 400+ year old translation that they feel is far preferable over abandoning what they see as the most accurate... even if it does use "out-of-date" and "archaic" language.

This is my last reply in this thread.

May God bless you, Roby.

 

[Logos1560]

Do you understand the gravity of the situation?
Would you be offended if someone twisted your words, or took them out of context?

Apparently, KJV-only advocates may not understand the gravity of the situation.

Do KJV-only advocates twist some of God's words, take them out of context, or add to them opinions of men in order to advocate their human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning? KJV-only advocates have not presented a positive, clear, consistent, sound scriptural case for their KJV-only view. KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated that they are zealous for the actual, specific, exact original-language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

KJV-only reasoning actually contradicts some clear scriptural truths as it shows partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611, as it uses unjust divers measures [double standards] in trying to apply different measures/standards to other English Bible translations than it will apply to the KJV, and as it uses fallacies such as begging the question to assume claims concerning the KJV that have not been proven to be true.

KJV-only advocates ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged in their marginal notes in the 1611 that they did not provide a English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture and they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. Church of England bias also influenced some of the translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV.

KJV-only advocates also seem to try to avoid or diminish the over actual 2,000 changes made to the 1611 edition by later editors/printers and the facts concerning the many actual variations and differences in over 100 varying editions of the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Apparently, KJV-only advocates may not understand the gravity of the situation.

Do KJV-only advocates twist some of God's words, take them out of context, or add to them opinions of men in order to advocate their human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning? KJV-only advocates have not presented a positive, clear, consistent, sound scriptural case for their KJV-only view. KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated that they are zealous for the actual, specific, exact original-language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

KJV-only reasoning actually contradicts some clear scriptural truths as it shows partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611, as it uses unjust divers measures [double standards] in trying to apply different measures/standards to other English Bible translations than it will apply to the KJV, and as it uses fallacies such as begging the question to assume claims concerning the KJV that have not been proven to be true.

KJV-only advocates ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged in their marginal notes in the 1611 that they did not provide a English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture and they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. Church of England bias also influenced some of the translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV.

KJV-only advocates also seem to try to avoid or diminish the over actual 2,000 changes made to the 1611 edition by later editors/printers and the facts concerning the many actual variations and differences in over 100 varying editions of the KJV.

Excellent [ppoints, as even the translators took some renderings from latin Vulgate, too over and assumed much of the Bishop and Geneva Bibles, and had varients readinds in their own margins.
Kjvo need to heed the translators on this, as they saw the validity of prior versions, and were merely seeking to update and improve them, and they saw the need to have their own translation also improved upon in the future when warranted. They did not see their efforts as being either inspired or perfect.

 

[Yeshua1]

No Scriptural support for any one English translation of the Greek and Hebrew into another...
I agree.

No Scriptural support for a believer being concerned, or even "valiant" ( zealous ) for God's very words, like David ( read the Psalms ) was ?
For the need to recognize God's preservation of His word, down through the ages, for the benefit of His children... those who would believe on His Son?
For God to be highly respected and His power and authority to be greatly feared, for promising to curse someone for adding to or taking away from His words ( Revelation 22:18-19 )?
For God to pronounce those who twist His words and transform them into another gospel, as accursed ( Galatians 1:8-9 )?

That is quite another matter, Roby.

Each and every word is important ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ), not simply man's paraphrasing of them as "good enough", or, "that's what it essentially says".
Each and every word belongs to God, is entrusted to His children, and is to be treated with more respect than even the most respected man's words, and should be handled very carefully.

Do you understand the gravity of the situation?
Would you be offended if someone twisted your words, or took them out of context?

If so, then imagine, if you will, how God will treat those who mangle and mishandle His holy words.

If you're willing to consider, or even capable of answering any of the above in the affirmative, then I think that you might come to a conclusion as to why some "KJVO" / "KJVP" are so protective of using a 400+ year old translation that they feel is far preferable over abandoning what they see as the most accurate... even if it does use "out-of-date" and "archaic" language.

This is my last reply in this thread.

May God bless you, Roby.

You are assuming here though that the Kjv team got it right each and every time, and that their Greek texts best reflects original one!

 

[Aaron]

Not at all.

Can you please give us any true doctrine of faith/worship NOT found in Scripture? (Not "wording", such as "Holy Trinity".)

MRRRRRRRRPPP! Yer barkin' up the wrong tree.

Looking for scriptural support of KJO in the KJV is called begging the question, or circular reasoning. It's a logical fallacy. If there were something in the KJV about KJO, it would actually be the best evidence AGAINST KJO, not for it.

The fact that there is nothing there, is not evidence against it.

That's my point.

 

[robycop3]

MRRRRRRRRPPP! Yer barkin' up the wrong tree.

Looking for scriptural support of KJO in the KJV is called begging the question, or circular reasoning. It's a logical fallacy. If there were something in the KJV about KJO, it would actually be the best evidence AGAINST KJO, not for it.

The fact that there is nothing there, is not evidence against it.

That's my point.

MMRRPP ! WRONG!

If such Scripture existed, it'd be in all valid translations in every language that has a Bible translation. KJVOs try all sortsa twists & dodges trying to make Scripture fot their doctrine. Well, it DOESN'T WORK !

NO non-Scriptural doctrine of faith/worship is true. And plainly, the KJVO myth has none. NO GETTING BY THOSE FACTS !

 

[robycop3]

MRRRRRRRRPPP! Yer barkin' up the wrong tree.

Looking for scriptural support of KJO in the KJV is called begging the question, or circular reasoning. It's a logical fallacy. If there were something in the KJV about KJO, it would actually be the best evidence AGAINST KJO, not for it.

The fact that there is nothing there, is not evidence against it.

That's my point.

Since you KNOW the OP is correct, you're trying to "back-way-Benny" a MAN-MADE false doctrine into the body of faith/worship of the real God. Well, it WON'T WORK! False is false, no matter whatcha call it.

And it's not just the KJVO myth that's false here. ANY & ALL man-made doctrines of faith/worship that have no Scriptural support are just-as-false.

Part of the reason God gave us the standard of Scripture is to counter these man-made doctrines, whose ultimate source is Satan. He is tricky. he suggests to a Christian that maybe the idea of regenerational baptism is true, & that well-meaning Christian spreads that idea til it becomes a doctrine. (Of course, Satan makes suggestions to lost people as well.)

When all is said & done, the FACT remains that the KJVO myth is false because it has no Scriptural support whatsoever.

 

[church mouse guy]

It seems to me that KJVO is a very minor error and quite harmless with the main victims identified as the handful of people who still practice it. Maybe we should have an NIVO organization to offset it. At least one could pronounce NIVO. A far worse error might be those who still believe in biological evolution from Darwin in face of scientific mathematical evidence from DNA that such a thing is utterly impossible, a fairy tale from 1859 in the same vein as the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen. What would you say to people who won't do the math?

 

[robycop3]

Apparently.
But I thank you, sir, for the underlined.

Now for my next question:
"KJV" or not, what are God's very words here?

" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, AV )
" For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, NKJV )
" For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, Geneva 1599 )

" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, ESV ).
" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, NASB )
" For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, NIV )

" And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." ( 1 John 5:7, ASV )



Which did GOD inspire John to write, and which one(s) are paraphrases, since they obviously differ?
Please keep in mind the very small differences between "that" and "which", "record" and "witness", and "Spirit" and "Ghost" in the first three.

Can you pick out God's very words by how they "resonate" in your spirit ( Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:11, John 8:47, John 10:27 ), or do they all state "basically the same thing"?

Do you understand why there are differences...
and do you even care that there are , in some cases, vast differences when certain passages are compared in the various English translations, Roby?

Most who post in these translation threads, don't appear to, from my perspective.

That's why God caused various translations to be made. We cannot arbitrarilysay FOR SURE "This MS is right; that one's wrong." We weren't there when they were made & we don't know who wrote most of 'em, exactly when or where.

The "manuscripts" question has been debated for well over a hundred years, with no resolution in sight.

 

[robycop3]

It seems to me that KJVO is a very minor error and quite harmless with the main victims identified as the handful of people who still practice it. Maybe we should have an NIVO organization to offset it. At least one could pronounce NIVO. A far worse error might be those who still believe in biological evolution from Darwin in face of scientific mathematical evidence from DNA that such a thing is utterly impossible, a fairy tale from 1859 in the same vein as the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen. What would you say to people who won't do the math?

Well, actually, the destruction of the KJVO myth is important because it casts doubt upon several of the most-used modern English versions such as the NKJV, NASV, or ESV. Besides, as Christians, we should combat any & all false doctrines of faith/worship. That includes any such doctrine that has no Scriptural support, as they're man-made & therefore false.

 

[church mouse guy]

That's why God caused various translations to be made. We cannot arbitrarilysay FOR SURE "This MS is right; that one's wrong." We weren't there when they were made & we don't know who wrote most of 'em, exactly when or where.

The "manuscripts" question has been debated for well over a hundred years, with no resolution in sight.

You make the problem of manuscripts sound worse than it is. Almost all passages are free of difficulties.

On the KJVO issue, I don't see that they have that much influence but then I live in the suburbs of a big city that is a hodge-podge of cults and apostasy.

 

[robycop3]

You make the problem of manuscripts sound worse than it is. Almost all passages are free of difficulties.

On the KJVO issue, I don't see that they have that much influence but then I live in the suburbs of a big city that is a hodge-podge of cults and apostasy.

Well, actually, it's the KJVOs that make it a major issue. They say, "That version is made from corrupt sources", etc.

But then, the KJVOs, having no ACTUAL evidence to support their claims, are always inventing excuses to try to justify them. The LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for their myth, however, renders it false.

Two of the most-maligned by the KJVOs are Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. However, the stories of their respective preservations show the earmarks of GOD'S work.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, actually, it's the KJVOs that make it a major issue. They say, "That version is made from corrupt sources", etc.

But then, the KJVOs, having no ACTUAL evidence to support their claims, are always inventing excuses to try to justify them. The LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for their myth, however, renders it false.

Two of the most-maligned by the KJVOs are Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. However, the stories of their respective preservations show the earmarks of GOD'S work.

Let's just say that KJVO is not based upon advanced scholarship. It is like the SBC prof who said that biological evolution was scientific because his scientific and mathematical education were horse and buggy and out of date. And then there are people who still believe like Galileo and Bacon that Christians should not discuss science. So KJVO is a hard sell. Nevertheless, I'd rather be stuck in a KJVO church than be forced to listen for thirty seconds to J.D. Greear or Russell Moore or Pope Francis.

 

[S0l0m0n]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT...

One irrefutable fact that makes the Baptist denomination myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT...

or

One irrefutable fact that makes the free-will myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT...

I really don't understand the mindset of individuals who claim to love the word of God and yet relentlessly (full of pride, debate, malignity, and being implacable; Romans 1:29-31) attack the historical, and traditional word of God that He has obviously blessed to be used by millions in mission work; and even revered and feared by the godless.
There is a witness of God, in that the KJV thees and thous are considered holy words even by the godless. It is not in the Elizabethan high English that they inwardly know this work to be holy, but the power of the Holy Spirit behind the whole work.

 

[S0l0m0n]

I really find that people blanket libeling others on this forum to be bad form.

Lockman Foundation is not a publishing house and they are also a nonprofit.

The Lockman Foundation - NASB, Amplified Bible, LBLA, and NBLH Bibles

The most offensive NIV is another one which was developed without a profit motive.

History - NIV Bible

Although their origin story is not interesting, Crossway of the ESV is also a nonprofit.

Crossway
Crossway

And of course the one you'all probably hate the most is also a non-profit which actually takes submissions for grants.

Tyndale House Foundation – Tyndale House Foundation

And despite their "fat cow", they aren't able to fund all the applications they would like to fund.

The exception would be the NKJV which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

I also find it interesting that the Bibles with the most Christian and interesting origin stories are bad-mouthed the most.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that a 'non-profit' means they aren't capable of raking in the cash?

Check out this page of "Salary Gluttons" (Salary Gluttons) to see the greed of Ken Ham, the Hanegraafs, John MacArthur, the Swindolls, Henry Morris, the Ligonier people, Ravi Zacharias, Alistair Begg, and other greedy supposed "Christians".

And if the salaries of these 'non-profits' are so high, can you even imagine the income from Bibles being pushed and used around the world?
No, you can't. And they don't want you to know.

 

[S0l0m0n]

Dave Gilbert had said:

I feel in my spirit, that the TR is the correct one.

To which you replied:

Just as Mormons feel "in their spirits" that Joey Smith & Brigand Young were actually prophets.

Dave Gilbert believes he was led by the Holy Spirit to God's true words.
And we know that the Mormon spirit is demonic.
Why then robycop3, are insinuating that behind Dave Gilbert is a demonic spirit?
You just compared a proclaimed Christian man's spiritual convictions about undeniable texts of Scripture to the spiritual convictions of those led by devils. (Whether you agree with the TR as the main text or not, it is undeniably Scripture.)
I believe robycop3, that you have crossed over into overt blasphemy with that one.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 6:50 PM Pacific.

 

[church mouse guy]

Please tell me you don't actually believe that a 'non-profit' means they aren't capable of raking in the cash?

Check out this page of "Salary Gluttons" (Salary Gluttons) to see the greed of Ken Ham, the Hanegraafs, John MacArthur, the Swindolls, Henry Morris, the Ligonier people, Ravi Zacharias, Alistair Begg, and other greedy supposed "Christians".

And if the salaries of these 'non-profits' are so high, can you even imagine the income from Bibles being pushed and used around the world?
No, you can't. And they don't want you to know.

Ravi Zacharias settled a lawsuit out of court. Morris is dead. Ken Ham lives very simply but the Ark is in debt about 60 million. Swindoll wrote a lot of bestsellers. He was a Dallas Seminary.

 

[Logos1560]

I really don't understand the mindset of individuals who claim to love the word of God and yet relentlessly (full of pride, debate, malignity, and being implacable; Romans 1:29-31) attack the historical, and traditional word of God that He has obviously blessed to be used by millions in mission work; and even revered and feared by the godless.
There is a witness of God, in that the KJV thees and thous are considered holy words even by the godless. It is not in the Elizabethan high English that they inwardly know this work to be holy, but the power of the Holy Spirit behind the whole work.

You fail to prove your accusation against believers who properly question unproven claims for a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory.

KJV-only advocates may display as much pride and arrogancy in their human non-scriptural reasoning for the KJV as you allege against others, but fail to prove. The Church of England makers of the KJV rejected much of the erroneous human reasoning that underlies a modern KJV-only theory.

You do not demonstrate that the power of the Holy Spirit was any more behind the whole work in the making of the KJV than He was behind the whole work in the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible or in the making of the 1982 NKJV.