Your KJVO myth is false.

[robycop3]

Yep.

Good, could you list those for me please?

Well, besides Psalm 119:89 that Hank D posted, there's Proverbs 30:5-6, Mark 13:31, Psalm 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23 & 25, & Matthew 4;4, to name a few.

 

[robycop3]

No, the KJV is among the most accurate translations we have today, as long as you understand the English. (And I'm not KJVO.)

I agree, John. But I believe YOU agree it's neither the only valid English Bible translation, nor even the best one. But its place oin history is unassailable, being the MOST PRINTED (If not the most-READ) book in history in any language. (I believe Mao Zhedong's "Little red Book" of his sayings is a distant 2nd.)

 

[robycop3]

Now, One Baptism, you still haven't given us any AUTHORITY for believing the KJVO myth. It's not found in the KJV itself, either in the text nor in the translators' extratextual material.

 

[delizzle]

Now, One Baptism, you still haven't given us any AUTHORITY for believing the KJVO myth. It's not found in the KJV itself, either in the text nor in the translators' extratextual material.

Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13 KJV

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:17‭-‬18 KJV

So, why the contradiction? If there is no contradiction, can you please explain?

 

[John of Japan]

Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13 KJV

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:17‭-‬18 KJV

So, why the contradiction?

Did I say the KJV was perfect? No, I did not. I said it is among the most accurate translations in existence.

In your little comparison, there are two different Hebrew words which should have been translated differently in the KJV. So what? You've not proven a thing.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree, John. But I believe YOU agree it's neither the only valid English Bible translation, nor even the best one. But its place oin history is unassailable, being the MOST PRINTED (If not the most-READ) book in history in any language. (I believe Mao Zhedong's "Little red Book" of his sayings is a distant 2nd.)

Yes, we agree.

 

[John of Japan]

I wholeheartedly agree. However, we Baptist for the most part are a cloistered folk with our KJV bibles (those who prefer them).
Even in my KJVO days (60's - 70's) we had problems sharing His word with the public.

I still have an unashamed love for the KJV - Cambridge, Oxford or Nelson (Oxford preference) as long as its NOT red letter (almost impossible to find anymore).

However when I teach I make a composite of the KJV, modern texts and if necessary my own translation researched English.

Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas without Luke Chapters 1 and 2 read from A King James Bible!

I agree completely.

 

[delizzle]

Did I say the KJV was perfect? No, I did not. I said it is among the most accurate translations in existence.

In your little comparison, there are two different Hebrew words which should have been translated differently in the KJV. So what? You've not proven a thing.

Because you are stating that the KJV is not perfect. Do you then admit that it has errors? How many more errors are there and why then should I then should I not conclude that the KJV is any more authoritative than other translations like the ESV or NASB?

 

[HankD]

Because you are stating that the KJV is not perfect. Do you then admit that it has errors? How many more errors are there and why then should I then should I not conclude that the KJV is any more authoritative than other translations like the ESV or NASB?

Error? Myself, I would be reluctant to call them errors, KJV NIV, ASV... rather as the KJV translators admitted that their work contained "blemishes".

One of the proofs that the KJV was never considered perfect by the Church of England was the fact that (to their credit) they for over two centuries diligently strained away at the text refining and removing any slag and blemishes.

 

[delizzle]

Error? Myself, I would be reluctant to call them errors, KJV NIV, ASV... rather as the KJV translators admitted that their work contained "blemishes".

One of the proofs that the KJV was never considered perfect by the Church of England was the fact that (to their credit) they for over two centuries diligently strained away at the text refining and removing any slag and blemishes.

Regardless, these "blemishes" are noted every translation. So how can someone honestly make the claim that the KJV is any more or less authoritative than any other translation. Picking the KJV over the NASB is based entirely on preference. I prefer the NIV for my daily reading. However, the poetic beauty of the King James english is preferred for worship. For kids ministry, I use the NIrV because it's more age appropriate. The point is that just about all of the popular translations have their nitch, all equal (for the most part) in authority.

 

[HankD]

Regardless, these "blemishes" are noted every translation. So how can someone honestly make the claim that the KJV is any more or less authoritative than any other translation. Picking the KJV over the NASB is based entirely on preference. I prefer the NIV for my daily reading. However, the poetic beauty of the King James english is preferred for worship. For kids ministry, I use the NIrV because it's more age appropriate. The point is that just about all of the popular translations have their nitch, all equal (for the most part) in authority.

Personally, I add source manuscript family into the equation, my preference a TR or Byzantine base (TR preference) over a W&H influenced source.

 

[One Baptism]

... The other references, including Romans [11:22], are entirely different words.

In Koine Greek they are different words, true, but Jesus does this all of the time from Genesis to Revelation, that is to say, using multiple words, in Hebrew or Koine Greek [or in English, or any language], which may be interchanged, having the same or similar definitions, and God is not therefore confined to any man-made and pharisaical rule in which He must utilize a single and only word in every single instance, for instance:

Love:

John 21:15,16 – αγαπας

John 21:17 – φιλεις​

baskets:

Matthew 16:9 - κοφινους

Matthew 16:10 - σπυριδας​

Feed:

John 21:15,17 - βοσκε

John 21:16 – ποιμαινε​

make/create:

Genesis 5:1 - ברא

Genesis 5:1 - עשׂה

Isaiah 43:17 – בראתיו [created]

Isaiah 43:17 – יצרתיו [formed]

Isaiah 43:17 – עשׂיתיו׃ [made]​

The ways of the LORD are equal:

Ezekiel 18:25 KJB - Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

Ezekiel 18:29 KJB - Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

Ezekiel 33:20 KJB - Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.​

That the KJB uses the words “cut off” [in English, KJB], while the Koine Greek words of Romans 11:22 and Galatians 5:12 differ.

God uses multiple words, from Genesis to Revelation, that we might be able to know the definitions of words throughout, as He defined them, placing them in the context and situation He wanted, even in Revelation:

Beast:

Revelation 4:7, 6:3,5 - ζωον

Revelation 20:10, etc - θηριον
​

Differing words, in any language, do not necessarily equate to differing definitions. Pick up a thesaurus.

Jump, Leap, Hop, Bound

Eat, Devour, Masticate, Chew​

I pray that this is helpful to you and all.

 

[One Baptism]

Jehovah is not the true name of God. It's been lost. The closest we have is an unpronounceable abbriviation "YHWH". Thus, "Lord" would be a more accurate title for God over "Jehovah".

Again, "Lord" is not a "name", which in those two passages provided to you, JEHOVAH [KJB] [YHVH if you prefer], is giving specifically. The NIV, has no name of God, which is why I asked the additional question in regards Jesus name. Why didn't they simply transliterate then, like they do in other places for lesser words?

 

[loDebar]

You are correct but the opposite is true also. The KJV has "lax renderings". The translators have changed the meaning by not holding to the meaning and use of the Hebrew or Greek
Young's Literal Translation explains:

NATHAN, 'to give, 84 different words
ASAH, 'to do, 74
DABAR, 'a word, 84
PANIM face 94 words
TOB, 'good, 41 words

Part of the problem is English but the extreme difference in words and their meanings distort the scripture
THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.


We know millions have been brought to Christ by the working of the Holy Ghost through reading the KJV but remember thje troubled churchres that originated on the frontier by those who only had the KJV and no access to the Hebrew or Greek meanings etc.
The lax renderings allowed those to follow errors in the KJV to develop differences into man's denominations

 

[One Baptism]

Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13 KJV

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:17‭-‬18 KJV

So, why the contradiction?

That is not a contradiction. The word "kill" is used in various ways in the OT and NT. It is a word with multiple uses, or shade of meaning, as to murder, is to kill. Allow the Bible to define itself, even line upon line. To do what you are now entering into, shows where your heart is towards God's word [whatever you believe it to be]. You seem to believe that there is no perfectly preserved words of God, anywhere, in a single book. It must then be easier for you to try to show erros in the words of Christ, than to admit this. Jesus is perfect, and preserved. Where then is His word? Who has it? Is it in our present time, our lost forever in history? Is it in a single place, or scattered to the four winds? Do we have it today, or are we still looking for it?

Jesus defines "kill" [Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17, etc KJB] in Matthew 19:18:

Matthew 19:18 KJB - He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,​

However, the NIV, etc has real contradictions, 40, 42. They are not the same, in way way it attempted to be spun.

 

[One Baptism]

I would say that the 119th Psalm is a testimony to the preservation of God's word.

Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.

Great, what about down here?

 

[TCassidy]

John 21:15,16 – αγαπας

John 21:17 – φιλεις

The two words mean different things.

Matthew 16:9 - κοφινους

Matthew 16:10 - σπυριδας

The two words mean different things.

John 21:15,17 - βοσκε

John 21:16 – ποιμαινε

The two words mean different things.

Revelation 4:7, 6:3,5 - ζωον

Revelation 20:10, etc - θηριον

The two words mean different things.

 

[One Baptism]

Well, besides Psalm 119:89 that Hank D posted, there's Proverbs 30:5-6, Mark 13:31, Psalm 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23 & 25, & Matthew 4;4, to name a few.

Very good. So God's words are all preserved to this very day then. Thank you.

Why then would you exclude Psalms 12:6-7 KJB from such a list, when it is perfectly clear?

Where are they [the preserved words of God]? Who has them? Are they available to all, in the hands of the common persons, or only in the hands of the scholar and the academic with access to ancient and dusty fragments in an old foreign language, that no one today actually speaks?

John 7:17 KJB - If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.​

Are they in one place, or all over the place? If scattered, how do we know which ones are His words, from those which are not?

In the days of Jesus and Paul, did they need to locate the 'originals' of Moses, David, Asaph, Jeremiah [by Baruch], Daniel, etc? Did they need to consult fragments, or did they simply quote from the presently [then] preserved words of God that they hand in/on hand?

We all know, older is not equative to more accurate.

We all know that majority is not always the truth.

We all know about those who seek to corrupt God's words, even as the serpent from the beginning, by adding and subtracting therefrom.

 

[TCassidy]

NATHAN, 'to give, 84 different words
ASAH, 'to do, 74
DABAR, 'a word, 84
PANIM face 94 words
TOB, 'good, 41 words

Most Hebrew names also had common meanings. However, to understand when the word is to be used as a proper name you note that the word is a masculine, singular, absolute.

Just like Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. The Hebrew word means "light bearer" but it is in the masculine, singular, absolute so we know it is a proper name (the name of something). In this case it is the name for the planet Venus.

 

[TCassidy]

Why then would you exclude Psalms 12:6-7 KJB from such a list, when it is perfectly clear?

Yes, it is perfectly clear. The antecedent of "them" is the "poor and needy" of the preceding context. Even the KJV says so in the marginal note. Look it up.