Your KJVO myth is false.

[TCassidy]

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".

YHWH is the tetragrammaton pronounced "Yahway."

But the Jews believed the Name was too Holy to speak so they took the consonants YHWH and added the vowels from the Hebrew word for "Lord" (adonai) and came up with YaHoWaH, which was pronounced "Jahovah" Or Jehovah.

 

[One Baptism]

The two words mean different things [ref. John 21:15-17] ..

They are the same in meaning. Read the context.

John 21:15,16 – αγαπας

John 21:17 – φιλεις​

John 21:15 KJB - So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

John 21:16 KJB - He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John 21:17 KJB - He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
​

How many times did Jesus say "lovest", 1, 2, or 3?

You should really take the Agape, Phileo test ...

 

[loDebar]

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.

This "nathan" is a verb used 84 ways We use it for a name. Nathan the prophet " as giver" is a noun


Is Lucifer Hebrew? When you it is say Venus, do you suppose " morning star"?

 

[TCassidy]

Is Lucifer Hebrew?

Latin. The Hebrew is הֵילֵל (heylel).

When you it is say Venus, do you suppose " morning star"?

It can be, much to the confusion of the KJVOs who don't have a good understanding of context.

 

[rsr]

I have also compared all of the NT of Young's Literal Translation to the original Greek, and found it to be a very poor translation, overly dependent on translating words by concordance, and overly dependent on the word order of the original language rather than the target language.

What? Concordance is not the holy grail, so to speak, of translation. Say it ain't so.

 

[TCassidy]

How many times did Jesus say "lovest", 1, 2, or 3?

He said αγαπας twice and φιλεις once. You do understand the different meanings to the words, don't you?

 

[loDebar]

Latin. The Hebrew is הֵילֵל (heylel).

I can be, much to the confusion of the KJVOs who don't have a good understanding of context.

I agree, We would have to know their culture, traditions and the other culture influences.

Back to heylel, Instead of morning star, or Venus,, I think it is a reference to first or prominent Heavenly light.

I have a problem with Jesus called the "morning Star" in Rev 22:6 .

2Pe 1:19¶
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Is this day star Jesus or just enlightenment ?

 

[HankD]

Great, what about down here?

Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

 

[John of Japan]

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?

I thought I already admitted the KJV has errors. Are you paying attention?

As far as authority goes, I put authority in the originals. Any translation only has authority as far as it correctly translates the original languages, and the KJV does that quite well, thank you. As far as the ESV and NASB, I've read them both and think they are good translations as far as that goes, but I'm a Byzantine Priority man.

 

[delizzle]

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.

Although the KJV says "thou shalt not kill", scholars looking at the Hebrew manuscripts and other passages of scripture to recognize that "murder" was the more accurate word choice. Kill is simply to take life. Murder is to take life without cause or authority.

The main point I was trying to make is that if some of the statements about the KJV are true, there would be no need to turn to commentaries or Strongs for answers to hermeneutical questions. We simply should turn to the KJV. However, in this one specific verse, we can at least admit that the NIV has a superior translation. It's not to say that all the NIV is better than the KJV. You provided one such example. This is why I find it foolish to depend entirely on one translation.

I think many here are confused with what the "infallibility of the word of God" actually means. It doesn't mean the bible is without possible errors. It means that the word of God, as given or inspired to the author was the infallible. However, the minute fallible men put that word to paper, it became susceptible to error. I do believe that because of God's sovereignty and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, no doctrine has been corrupted as a result of any errors that scribes or translators have made. Which is why we can still have faith that the Bible is truth inspite of these minor errors.

 

[Salty]

...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). ...

This is somewhat off OP for a moment - but last year I was talking to a lady who told me that ONLY the red letter words in the Bible were important.

 

[One Baptism]

This is somewhat off OP for a moment - but last year I was talking to a lady who told me that ONLY the red letter words in the Bible were important.

Wow. What about the words of the Father, or the Holy Spirit?

 

[delizzle]

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?

Yeshua was His actual name, not Jesus if we want to be technical. Regardless, it doesn't matter. However, the NIV is right imo to not have a name for God because we honestly don't really know what that name is. However, "Lord" is the title that the hebrews used in place of YHWH out of fear of using "THE LORD'S" name in vain. Jehovah is a made up name by adding vowels to the YHWH.

 

[delizzle]

YHWH is the tetragrammaton pronounced "Yahway."

But the Jews believed the Name was too Holy to speak so they took the consonants YHWH and added the vowels from the Hebrew word for "Lord" (adonai) and came up with YaHoWaH, which was pronounced "Jahovah" Or Jehovah.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[One Baptism]

...I think many here are confused with what the "infallibility of the word of God" actually means. It doesn't mean the bible is without possible errors. It means that the word of God, as given or inspired to the author was the infallible. However, the minute fallible men put that word to paper, it became susceptible to error. I do believe that because of God's sovereignty and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, no doctrine has been corrupted as a result of any errors that scribes or translators have made. Which is why we can still have faith that the Bible is truth inspite of these minor errors.

Wow. The word of God has 'some' errors? How do you know which ones are the errors? Are you telling me God preserved His words from 'most' errors?

Are there any of the words of Jesus, the 'red-letter' words, that are in error?

I do not think you used the word "sovereignty" correctly, or perhaps have another definition of which I am not familiar.

 

[One Baptism]

Yeshua was His actual name, not Jesus if we want to be technical. Regardless, it doesn't matter. However, the NIV is right imo to not have a name for God because we honestly don't really know what that name is. However, "Lord" is the title that the hebrews used in place of YHWH out of fear of using "THE LORD'S" name in vain. Jehovah is a made up name by adding vowels to the YHWH.

Now, you are saying that "Jesus" is not the name of the son of God?

 

[delizzle]

I thought I already admitted the KJV has errors. Are you paying attention?

As far as authority goes, I put authority in the originals. Any translation only has authority as far as it correctly translates the original languages, and the KJV does that quite well, thank you. As far as the ESV and NASB, I've read them both and think they are good translations as far as that goes, but I'm a Byzantine Priority man.

I am more Alexandrian myself. But I am picking up what you're throwing down.

 

[One Baptism]

He said αγαπας twice and φιλεις once. You do understand the different meanings to the words, don't you?

So what did Jesus say to Peter for the "third" time? Help me out here, really ...

 

[One Baptism]

... Alexandrian ...

Jesuits ...

 

[One Baptism]

This "nathan" is a verb used 84 ways We use it for a name. Nathan the prophet " as giver" is a noun ....

All true, however the NIV "Lord" in those two specific verses, is neither a translation, nor transliteration [even though the NIV will transliterate 'hades', but not God's own name in those two verses], and makes no sense whatsoever to say that God's name is "Lord" in those two verses. "Lord" is not a name. Unless you might be of that class who say, "Lord 'Lord' ...", and I pray you aren't.