The "only" version?

[Rippon]

I will err on the side of caution and not call a person a liar, until I know where they are coming from.

Would 8 years of repeating the same falsehoods be enough info for you to determine that?

 

[Rippon]

Would it be just to praise the 1560 Geneva Bible as a good English translation and to condemn the NKJV, which can justly be considered better overall than the Geneva if the same measures/standards are applied to both?

The above is entirely reasonable, therefore totally unacceptable by a typical KJVO person.

 

[HankD]

The reason I have great difficulty calling anyone a liar is that I have lied during my lifetime.

 

[robycop3]

Thanks for helping me understand what you generally know about the KJVO myth.

May I ask why or how they came to that conclusion about the KJV being the only valid English Bible translation? What is the basis for that claim? In keeping the testimonies of the Son without dropping verses that speaks of His deity? is it changing the meaning of His words that runs contrary to other truths in the scripture in the N.T. ?



You do know why the lost books are not considered actual scripture, because the lost books run contrary to scripture?

When anti-KJV ers admit that not all Bible say the same thing, then how does one prove the truth?

1 John 2: 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

In according to scripture by how no scripture can be a lie in running against the other scripture in that accepted 66 Books of the Bible that can cause someone to go astray or strengthen them in their wickedness, is how you can prove with His help, which Bible version is the one to rely on.

If that standard was good enough in dismissing the lost books as NOT scripture, then the same can be applied to modern day translations in proving they have kept or NOT kept the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by.

Is that not a reasonable thing to do with Him in proving which Bible keeps the testimonies of the Son and not decline from that testimony as well as not changing His words that would run contrary to scripture even in that same modern Bible?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Remember, all Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

All Bible translations have some goofs & booboos, and a certain amount of the translators' own thoughts & beliefs added in. The KJV is certainly no exception. However, some translations have more errors than others.

That's why one should read a variety of translations. Some correct the goofs of others, so one gains a broader overview of God's word. The BEST solution, of course, would be to become proficient in the old hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek languages, but that's impossible for most people, so we depend upon translations in our best language.

The KJV is not in our current style of English. It was made for the British readership of 400 years ago, just as the Model T was made for roads & drivers of the 1910s.

We can go on endlessly pointing out errors in given English Bible translations, but our best bet is to use valid translations we like and not try to choose just one & exclude all others. The payoff is better understanding of Scripture!

As the AV makers wrote:

"Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

 

[robycop3]

Would that include making false statements of the KJV as an argument against the KJV that can be found in all Bible versions?

You do remember your later post voicing your angst against the KJV for 1 Timothy 6:10, right?

That is like taking a verse out of context in making a vain complaint against the KJV. At the link below is comparing 1 Timothy 6:10 in KJV, ESV, NASB, AMP, & NIV with each other as a testimony that most modern Bibles say the same thing.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV;ESV;NASB;AMP;NIV - For the love of money is the root of - Bible Gateway

So are all other Bible versions ignoring all other evils in the world like suicide bombings? No. You took that verse out of context of the message being given about believers in their walk with the Lord in relations to desiring to be rich rather than putting their trust in the Lord.

So is that lying? I believe you got swept up in that anti-KJVOnlyism fervor that you began agreeing with everything against KJVOnlyism without actually discerning the merits of those complaints.​

Actually, the KJV's 1 Tim. 6;10 is a poor translation of the Greek. There's no greek article meaning "the" between "est" (is & "rhizo" (root). But to make sense in English, translators must add a word between "is" & "root". Therefore, modern translators generally add "a", which has no Koine greek equivalent, as, had Paul meant "the", he woulda used the Greek article.

And another glaring goof in the KJV is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the "Bible versions" forum, and remains an error, so no need to discuss it again.

As I said in another post - All Bible translations are products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, & each will have its own errors & some added thoughts of the translators. That's why I read a variety of English translations, from Wycliffe's 1384 thru the ESV. Every time I read one or the other, I learn a little more. As God said, "verse upon verse, precept upon precept".

And I reject the KJVO myth, based upin its lack of Scriptural support & thus, no authority from GOD to believe it.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Do you try to misrepresent believers who may disagree with a modern KJV-only view as supposedly opposing the KJV or as supposedly being anti-KJV?

Disagreeing with KJV-only claims is not the same thing as opposing the KJV as what it actually is.

I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I read and accept it as what it actually is and as what its own translators asserted that it was. I merely disagree with those who try to make the KJV into something that it has not been proven to be.

It is KJV-only authors who try to claim that the Textus Receptus originates from Antioch. KJV-only advocates tend to ignore the truth that all the sources used in the making of the KJV did not originate from Antioch. The makers of the KJV made some use of non-TR sources such as the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in making their revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

For @robycop3 also

Not when those who oppose the KJVO are arguing the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts. So how can you prove who started what first in regards to source origins? I can concede that neither one of us can on who started that argument first.

However, Gnosticism originated around Alexandria and poetic licensing has been known to exist IN Alexandria. So what would be the end result of the poetic licensing of the documents from Alexandria and its subsequent influence it would have as spread through Christianity?

It has been agreed as a Gnostic theme below by most people; If any refutation or correction can be brought to light, do share as I am relying on a general internet source on its teachings..

The ‘Gnostic’ Gospels

"Only certain Christians possessed special knowledge (or “gnosis”), and that this knowledge was only given to the spiritual, the few, the “insiders”. Not everyone had this “divine spark” — only those “in the know” – the intellectuals. Those lacking this spiritual knowledge — well, they were doomed. According to Gnosticism, salvation is attained through the acquisition of special “secret” knowledge, not by grace through faith as the Bible teaches."

I don't know about you, but I see that theme in Pentecostals and Cahrismatics circles where ( although they do not all agree with this theme, it has been known as coming from among their circles ) " if you do not speak in tongues, you do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore you are not saved."

Modern day tongue speakers do claim a separate receiving of what they believe was the baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from salvation that comes with evidence of tongues ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 John 4:1-6 & 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & Isaiah 8:19 reproves it as not of Him at all ) so they assume that spirit was the Holy Spirit just as they assume that tongue coming without interpretation is for private benefit such as for self edification; hence Gnosticism.

So is there evidence of Gnostic influence in scripture? You discern that with Him as we go along.

John 16:13 in ALL Bibles testify that the Holy Spirit CANNOT use tongues for uttering His own intercessions when He can only speak what He hears. What does your Bible version testify of in Romans 8:26-27? The opposite or does it infer that the Holy Spirit makes His intercessions directly Himself?

That is why "itself" was used in the KJV because verse 27 explains how the Son as the "he" that searches our hearts as confirmed in Hebrews 4:12-16 is the same "he" that knows the mind of the Spirit as it is in according to the will of God being the only Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 1 Timothy 2:5 when the mind of the Holy Spirit serves as a means by how His silent intercessions are made known to the Father for how and why the Father knows before even we ask anything in prayer in Matthew 6:7-8. Romans 8:26-27 in the KJV is the truth for all believers in Jesus Christ.

Even Gnostic influence reached the 1599 Geneva Bible in the errant marginal notes for Romans 8:26-27 as running against scripture when not even His groanings could be uttered.

It gets worse when modern day tongue speakers wrest Paul's words out of context in 1 Corinthians 14th chapter as if Paul was exhorting believers to seek the gift of tongues over the gift of prophesy for the way modern day tongue speakers give tongues without interpretation all those "private benefits" from that chapter.

Paul was comparing tongues against prophesy for why prophesy is better because tongues is not a stand alone gift when it needs to be interpreted for the tongue speaker to understand and be fruitful, as in edifying to the tongue speaker himself.

But as it is, Gnostic influence on Romans 8:26-27 makes Jesus's words in John 16:13 as of no effect in almost all modern Bible. It is a lie in Romans 8:26 when groans can be uttered and thus heard when the Holy Spirit cannot uttered His intercessions at all, and it declines from the testimony of the Son in Romans 8:27 , especially when the modern Bible commit a grammatical error by replacing the "he" with "the Spirit" in the conclusion of that verse.

This is why I prefer to rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good and evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find in keeping the faith which is the good fight, but I give credit to the Lord Jesus Christ for my being able to see that truth in the KJV; and so He will have to do the same for you.

 

[Logos1560]

Not when those who oppose the KJVO are arguing the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts. So how can you prove who started what first in regards to source origins?

You avoid the sound point that your posts have misrepresented many believers who disagree with a modern KJV-only theory but who do not actually oppose the KJV as what it actually is.

KJV-only advocates have been arguing a two-streams-of-Bibles argument since at least Benjamin Wilkinson, the Seventh-day Adventist author, whose claims were repeated in David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible.

Is there only one old original language NT manuscript that is said to have been copied in Alexandria? The fact that it was copied in that location would not be clear, sound evidence that its text was originated there. Could it possibly have been copied from an earlier manuscript copied in Antioch? From what other manuscript was it copied? Do you improperly try to smear all other old original language manuscripts by use of a guilt by association fallacy which tries to associate them all with the one manuscript Codex Alexandrinus?

Too many KJV-only allegations or accusations seem to rely too much on speculations, assumptions, and fallacies and not on clear sound evidence and not on consistent, just measures/standards.

I have not recommended or advocated any Alexandrian text.

I have an edition of the KJV's NT printed in 1869, which includes various readings from three old manuscripts [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus] at the bottom of each page.

 

[Yeshua1]

You avoid the sound point that your posts have misrepresented many believers who disagree with a modern KJV-only theory but who do not actually oppose the KJV as what it actually is.

KJV-only advocates have been arguing a two-streams-of-Bibles argument since at least Benjamin Wilkinson, the Seventh-day Adventist author, whose claims were repeated in David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible.

Is there only one old original language NT manuscript that is said to have been copied in Alexandria? The fact that it was copied in that location would not be clear, sound evidence that its text was originated there. Could it possibly have been copied from an earlier manuscript copied in Antioch? From what other manuscript was it copied? Do you improperly try to smear all other old original language manuscripts by use of a guilt by association fallacy which tries to associate them all with the one manuscript Codex Alexandrinus?

Too many KJV-only allegations or accusations seem to rely too much on speculations, assumptions, and fallacies and not on clear sound evidence and not on consistent, just measures/standards.

I have not recommended or advocated any Alexandrian text.

I have an edition of the KJV's NT printed in 1869, which includes various readings from three old manuscripts [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus] at the bottom of each page.

One can believe that the TR is the best Greek text, and the Kjv the best translation, but cannot hold to KJVO....

 

[HopefulNChrist]

You avoid the sound point that your posts have misrepresented many believers who disagree with a modern KJV-only theory but who do not actually oppose the KJV as what it actually is.

KJV-only advocates have been arguing a two-streams-of-Bibles argument since at least Benjamin Wilkinson, the Seventh-day Adventist author, whose claims were repeated in David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible.

Is there only one old original language NT manuscript that is said to have been copied in Alexandria? The fact that it was copied in that location would not be clear, sound evidence that its text was originated there. Could it possibly have been copied from an earlier manuscript copied in Antioch? From what other manuscript was it copied? Do you improperly try to smear all other old original language manuscripts by use of a guilt by association fallacy which tries to associate them all with the one manuscript Codex Alexandrinus?

Too many KJV-only allegations or accusations seem to rely too much on speculations, assumptions, and fallacies and not on clear sound evidence and not on consistent, just measures/standards.

I have not recommended or advocated any Alexandrian text.

I have an edition of the KJV's NT printed in 1869, which includes various readings from three old manuscripts [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus] at the bottom of each page.

Gnosticism has been known to originate from and around Alexandria along with poetic licensing by secular reports..

Your failure to discern with Him of that Gnostic influence on documents in post #66 is obvious.

There can be only 2 stream of thought because as prophesied by Jesus, the Father says there are 2.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Those who do not love Him will omit verses that they favor for their patented cult teachings. That is the same as declining from the testimonies of the Son.

Those who favor tongues without interpretation for self edification has to be the source of gnostic teachings for why they change His words in Romans 8:26-27 to imply or directly testify that the Holy Spirit uses tongues without interpretation for uttering His intercessions when John 16:13 in all Bibles says He cannot do that but speak only what He hears.

So the bottom line is.. is your Bible version keeping the truths in His words or has Gnostic influences changed the meaning of His words in Romans 8:26-27 to make the truth in John 16:13 as having no effect? That is why I rely only on the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Gnosticism has been known to originate from and around Alexandria along with poetic licensing by secular reports..

Your failure to discern with Him of that Gnostic influence on documents in post #66 is obvious.

There can be only 2 stream of thought because as prophesied by Jesus, the Father says there are 2.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Those who do not love Him will omit verses that they favor for their patented cult teachings. That is the same as declining from the testimonies of the Son.

Those who favor tongues without interpretation for self edification has to be the source of gnostic teachings for why they change His words in Romans 8:26-27 to imply or directly testify that the Holy Spirit uses tongues without interpretation for uttering His intercessions when John 16:13 in all Bibles says He cannot do that but speak only what He hears.

So the bottom line is.. is your Bible version keeping the truths in His words or has Gnostic influences changed the meaning of His words in Romans 8:26-27 to make the truth in John 16:13 as having no effect? That is why I rely only on the KJV.

Many textual scholars would disagree with you that the sources used for the Critical Greek text were all from Gnostic or else all corrupted"satanic' sources!

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Many textual scholars would disagree with you that the sources used for the Critical Greek text were all from Gnostic or else all corrupted"satanic' sources!

I just believe Jesus said John 14:23-24 and John 15:20 for a reason and that reason is that one day believers will have to lean on Him for discernment on which Bible version loved Him and His words to keep His words from those that did not so that they will have the approved Bible version to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by His kept words of truths.

So ask Jesus today on which Bible version you should rely on that loved Him in keeping His words.

 

[Yeshua1]

I just believe Jesus said John 14:23-24 and John 15:20 for a reason and that reason is that one day believers will have to lean on Him for discernment on which Bible version loved Him and His words to keep His words from those that did not so that they will have the approved Bible version to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by His kept words of truths.

So ask Jesus today on which Bible version you should rely on that loved Him in keeping His words.

The Nas/Esv/Csb/Kjv/Nkjv are all the word of God to us in English!

 

[HopefulNChrist]

The Nas/Esv/Csb/Kjv/Nkjv are all the word of God to us in English!

But only the KJV has kept the meat of His words to discern good & evil by and also the KJV has kept His words without declining from the testimonies of the Son. I consider that important for me because of Him, I love Him & His words.

 

[HankD]

Many textual scholars would disagree with you that the sources used for the Critical Greek text were all from Gnostic or else all corrupted"satanic' sources!

I wouldn't categorize careless and sloppy scribes as "satanic".

On the other hand some scholars believe that the Byzantine scribes conflated texts to make their final product "smooth".
Personally I don't believe this either.

Ancient papyri which predate both Alexandrian and Byzantine contain both types of variances.

Brother Cassidy did a report on this once. Byzantine readings have been found in ancient papyri:

HARRY A. STURZ, "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism" (Book Review) - ProQuest

Somewhere out there lies the true text 100%.
We have enough manuscripts to calculate by algorithm the true text to within a percentage point or two.

Scribal carelessness is not God's fault.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

My position on the only version is which version keeps His words in discerning good and evil by so you can defend the faith in Jesus Christ. You can only discern that with Him. I cannot convince you. If you do not see anything wrong with your modern version of Romans 8:26-27 with the truth in John 16:13 in seeing how the KJV kept that truth aligned, then I can't help you.

 

[HankD]

My position on the only version is which version keeps His words in discerning good and evil by so you can defend the faith in Jesus Christ. You can only discern that with Him. I cannot convince you. If you do not see anything wrong with your modern version of Romans 8:26-27 with the truth in John 16:13 in seeing how the KJV kept that truth aligned, then I can't help you.

HNC If you are addressing me, then you assume that I need or want your help.
While I may find kernels of truth you have mined here and there, my dependency for truth does not have a foci in you as the scriptures Romans 8:26-27; John 16:13 ironically make perfectly clear sir.

 

[JonC]

I just believe Jesus said John 14:23-24 and John 15:20 for a reason and that reason is that one day believers will have to lean on Him for discernment on which Bible version loved Him and His words to keep His words from those that did not so that they will have the approved Bible version to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by His kept words of truths.

So ask Jesus today on which Bible version you should rely on that loved Him in keeping His words.

God's Word is not a superficial matter. You should not rely on a translation but rather prayerfully study God's Word understand that the English versions are translations.

The Catholics-Anglicans who created the KJV Bible did not love God any more or less than those who worked on other versions.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

HNC If you are addressing me, then you assume that I need or want your help.
While I may find kernels of truth you have mined here and there, my dependency for truth does not have a foci in you as the scriptures Romans 8:26-27; John 16:13 ironically make perfectly clear sir.

Just to be clear, I shall repeat the post.

My position on the only version is which version keeps His words in discerning good and evil by so you can defend the faith in Jesus Christ. You can only discern that with Him. I cannot convince you. If you do not see anything wrong with your modern version of Romans 8:26-27 with the truth in John 16:13 in seeing how the KJV kept that truth aligned, then I can't help you.

John 16:13 says the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues to utter His own intercessions in all Bible Versions.

However, Romans 8:26-27 in most modern Bibles testify to the contrary, but the KJV does not.

If you guys still do not see anything wrong with the still, after asking Jesus for help to see the lie, then I can't help you see why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by. Only He can show why I do. So ask Him..

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Actually, the NASV is more-accurate than the KJV and older versions, as scholars of the three original Scriptural languages have said.

And the KJV has some glaring errors in it, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 and "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. While, all in all, it's an excellent translation that has served the English world well, it's not the BEST. And its language is now simply outta date.

Agree. I asked Jordon two days ago what evidence he had for making the claims he did. He hasn't responded. Based on my experience with KJVO's, he never will.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

God's Word is not a superficial matter. You should not rely on a translation but rather prayerfully study God's Word understand that the English versions are translations.

The Catholics-Anglicans who created the KJV Bible did not love God any more or less than those who worked on other versions.

I rely on Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd. After years of using the NASB and a daily Bible reading in the NIV, the Lord led me to use the KJV because of troubling verses that was going against the truth in other parts of scripture in those modern Bibles.

I have found the KJV on more than several occasions keeping the truths in His words that I just got fed up reading the Daily Bible reading in the NIV and just look at the selected references for the day ( not all of them ) and just read it in the KJV.

Again, only the Lord can confirm to you that the KJV is the one to rely on.