Why are so many post "KJVO"?

[annsni]

We will all be responsible for what we uttered, on the Great Day of Judgment. Stop the false accusation!

Can you show me where I made a false accusation? What I posted was truth. Truth backed up with fact. What is posted on that site is not truth backed up with fact.

 

[Askjo]

This is a lie since the phrase is printed right here in my NIV. It is in a footnote but it is not "left out" nor is everything pertaining to His Kingdom and diety is left out. Christ's kingdom and deity is clearly spoken of in the NIV.

The footnote is NOT in the text. It is a note that explains something on the page. Bible Gateway.com shows:

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
Footnotes:
Matthew 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

When you read the PASSAGE (remember there were no verse separations. Verse 32 says "For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them." The next verse/sentence says "But seek first his kingdom..." Who's kingdom would they be speaking of? The NIV uses something from the English language called pronouns. My first grader learned about them this year. Since "his" points back to a subject in the former sentence, this argument is once again, lies.

AGAIN -- Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

HUH? They called Jesus (the subject of the passage and the subject to whom they were speaking) "Son of God". There is no argument here. That is not degrading His deity - yet another lie.


I could go on - but I'd rather spend time with my family. I've seen lists like this and they are full of untruths, deceptions and lies. Typical.

AGAIN -- Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase? Who told you to remove the people’s speaking?

 

[Eliyahu]

Can you show me where I made a false accusation? What I posted was truth. Truth backed up with fact. What is posted on that site is not truth backed up with fact.

You have to prove that the site is full of deception as you said this:


Yep - went through the first few Bible verses with my own Bibles and I see that, once again, a KJVO site is full of deception and lies.

 

[Trotter]

Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

Because there is cause to doubt that particular part due to conflicting sources. These "modern versions" are at least attempting to be honest with the reader instead of putting it in and not netioning the fact that not all of the witnesses agree. You know, how the KJV USED to do, before they removed all the footnotes?

 

[R. Lawson]

Why are so many post "KJVO"?

Because cults tend to spread like cancer.

 

[Keith M]

Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

A better question would be "Why did the KJVs add this phrase?" Since the texts underlying modern translations are older and probably more accurate, it stands to reason the phrase was added in later manuscripts. Most supposed omissions in modern translations are not omissions at all. The later texts had much more time for errors, or "corruption," to be added.

The talented KJV translators worked from 1604 to 1611 and they did a fine job with the very limited resources available to them back then. They had basically twelve ancient manuscripts which the subcommittees shared. Since that time, however, many hundreds of additional manuscripts have been found, and many of them are far older than those available to the KJV team. And of course, more ancient means closer to the originals, closer to the first inspired manuscripts which came from the mind of God to the original authors. Therefore they are also more trustworthy and reliable.
..........
During the terrible persecution of the Christians under Nero, Decius, and Diocletian, all copies of the Scriptures were ordered to be destroyed. Of course, some did survive and then when Emperor Constantine became a Christian in 312, he ordered that hundreds of copies of the Scriptures should be made. And pious scribes and copyists set to work with great fervor. Occasionally they would add a word or phrase in the margin, and then the next copyist would come along and suppose that these words belonged in the text, and he would insert them. So the later manuscripts got to be a bit longer and contain material not found in the earliest and best manuscripts. And that’s why translators today take those words and phrases out of the text, because they are not found in the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts and codices.

In conclusion, you may be sure that in the NIV you will find all of the inspired text but not the words added by men, however much we might like to have those additional words. Translators must give us the very best and genuine text without any human additions. The highest criterion of the NIV team is accuracy in transmitting the inspired text.
- [URL]http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/accuracy/niv-kjv-verses.php[/URL]

 

[Mexdeaf]

The footnote is NOT in the text. It is a note that explains something on the page.

The 1611 KJV had footnotes also. And the translators considered them to be God's Word according to their Preface. What's the difference?

Oh, yes- I understand now- MV footnotes are the work of GNOSTICS...

 

[Baptist4life]

This whole thread seems to have......AGAIN......turned into a bashing of the KJV Bible, not the KJVO position. Happens almost every time. Maybe some of you need to step away and look at the criticism you CLAIM is for the KJVO crowd, and notice how most of your posts are against the KJV Bible instead.

 

[rbell]

Please show me this site where lies and deception are. Take any quotations from this site and show me lies and deception.

They take verses that mean the same thing, and attempt to "prove" there are differences.

If you wanna play by those rules, then remember there are differences in the editions of the KJV. One of them has "of God," the other doesn't. So which KJV is wrong?

Fortunately, I don't play by those silly rules, so things are fine here. :saint:

 

[rbell]

This whole thread seems to have......AGAIN......turned into a bashing of the KJV Bible, not the KJVO position. Happens almost every time. Maybe some of you need to step away and look at the criticism you CLAIM is for the KJVO crowd, and notice how most of your posts are against the KJV Bible instead.

Huh?

Most of what I'm reading here involves slamming a site that bashes the NIV. Please show where someone has bashed the KJV...quote it, if you don't mind.

 

[Mexdeaf]

This whole thread seems to have......AGAIN......turned into a bashing of the KJV Bible, not the KJVO position. Happens almost every time. Maybe some of you need to step away and look at the criticism you CLAIM is for the KJVO crowd, and notice how most of your posts are against the KJV Bible instead.

I suppose you are speaking to me also, since I made the last post before yours. What I posted was not against the KJV, but rather a FACT about the KJV and the KJV translator's opinions of footnotes.

Sigh... I guess one man's truth is another man's bashing- whatever.

 

[EdSutton]

This whole thread seems to have......AGAIN......turned into a bashing of the KJV Bible, not the KJVO position. Happens almost every time. Maybe some of you need to step away and look at the criticism you CLAIM is for the KJVO crowd, and notice how most of your posts are against the KJV Bible instead.

Did you happen to notice that any "bashing" on this thread originated with a "bashing of all 'non-KJV' Bibles" perchance?

You might consider checking posts # 19 & 22 for starters, to see where any "bashing" originated. So who started the bashing, and what is now being responded to, in this. Uh- KJVO.

In addition, another poster suggested that those of us on this thread were lacking in ability to comprehend the discussion, in post # 26. I do not see that one person has "bashed" the KJV, thus far, on this thread, and I have read every post.

Not 'elevating' the KJV above any and all other versions, to some "special status" such as two posters on this thread have seemed to do, one of whom has claimed NOT to be KJVO, and the second who has stated that he does not claim 'inspiration' for the KJV, whatever any of this may actually mean, does not equal "bashing" the KJV.

Although I do wonder why, in virtually every instance I have seen that I can recall, whenever there is some possibility of more than one position, the above said posters, as do you, somehow always seem to wind up ONLY on the 'side' of the KJV, be the issue that of text or even the rendering of a word or phrase.

BTW, what Baptist decided that any "non-Baptist" translation such as the KJV, NIV, or NASB, should be a "better" translation, than that of a couple of the well-known and most definitely the most "Baptistic" of translations, namely the NKJV and HCSB?

Ed

 

[Askjo]

The 1611 KJV had footnotes also. And the translators considered them to be God's Word according to their Preface. What's the difference?

Oh, yes- I understand now- MV footnotes are the work of GNOSTICS...

The KJV does not have footnotes, but it has marginal notes. The KJV's notes did not say anything about the MANUSCRIPTS such as "later MSS added" or "earliest MSS omitted."

 

[EdSutton]

The KJV does not have footnotes, but it has marginal notes. The KJV's notes did not say anything about the MANUSCRIPTS such as "later MSS added" or "earliest MSS omitted."

Does it really make a difference as to which 'printing convention' is followed as to the location of the notes, when they are referencing a verse?

BTW, I believe the KJV translator notes are properly referred to as "'side' notes" rather than marginal notes.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJV does not have footnotes, but it has marginal notes. The KJV's notes did not say anything about the MANUSCRIPTS such as "later MSS added" or "earliest MSS omitted."

It doesn't?

How about this note from Luke XVII v36?

'This 36 verse is wanton in most of the Greek copies'

Or this note next to Matthew I v11

'Some read Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias'

Or this note from Luke X v22

'Many ancient copies adde these words, and turning to his Disciples he said'

BTW, saw several more cases while just flipping through it, but didn't take the time to type them out.

Look at your copy of the KJV1611 Askjo and see for yourself.

 

[Tater77]

Ah, you beat me to it.

I can second the accuracy of those verses margin notes. Seen them myself.

 

[EdSutton]

It doesn't?

How about this note from Luke XVII v36?

'This 36 verse is wanton in most of the Greek copies'

Or this note next to Matthew I v11

'Some read Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias'

Or this note from Luke X v22

'Many ancient copies adde these words, and turning to his Disciples he said'

BTW, saw several more cases while just flipping through it, but didn't take the time to type them out.

Look at your copy of the KJV1611 Askjo and see for yourself.

Hmmm!

One more perfectly good "lead balloon" shot down, I see.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

These are valid.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJV does not have footnotes, but it has marginal notes. The KJV's notes did not say anything about the MANUSCRIPTS such as "later MSS added" or "earliest MSS omitted."

Would you like to rethink this statement in light of the above evidence?

 

[Askjo]

These are valid.

Which KJV? Oxford or Cambridge?