• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Your KJVO myth is false.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
(note: responding to my post about lady who only accepted words in red)

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

I talked to her for about 10-15 minutes - she was dogmatic about the red-letters - and would not budge- seems as though that was the only thing that was discussed. I finally told her - that we were not getting anywhere and I politely left.
 

delizzle

Active Member
Why would you question that passage?
Because the earliest manuscripts did not have this passage. Scholars believe that it was later added In the form of a note to bring clarification. Ending at verse 8 is a cliff hangar. Eventually, the note mistakenly found its way into the texts.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
But no doctrine has been compromised as a result of any of these errors.
I am going to have to disagree with you. I believe the bible is without error of fact. The history of the bible is factual history, the prophecies of the bible are factual prophecies, and the promises of the bible are factual promises.

That is what the word "infallible" means in this context. The bible will never fail to be true.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Because the earliest manuscripts did not have this passage. Scholars believe that it was later added In the form of a note to bring clarification. Ending at verse 8 is a cliff hangar. Eventually, the note mistakenly found its way into the texts.
Again, I disagree. If we look at all the manuscript evidence, including the two most famous of the Alexandrian manuscripts, we see the evidence for including the passage is overwhelming.

In fact, if we look at Vaticanus we see that the scribe even left room for the last 12 verses because he knew something was missing from the text he was copying.

vat.jpg
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

Psalm 12:6-7 is excluded from that list because V7 is about PEOPLE, as I explained earlier. The AV makers believe that themselves, as I pointed out by posting their footnote. OTOH, you believe the false doctrine about it because it's found in Dr. Wilkinson's book.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Once again, One Baptism -

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the man-made KJVO myth? It's not found in your KJV, neither in the text, nor in the translators' extratextual material.

Without any AUTHORITY, all your pro-KJVO arguments are only hot air.

Your FAILURE TO ANSWER this question, which I've asked you thrice now, indicates you're stumped & clueless about why you're KJVO. Your continued failure to answer will reduce your credibility to zero.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The reason brother TCassidy that you cannot see the "third" time, is because your Concordance/Lexicon, etc rules over your plain English Bible.

Sir, Doc Cassidy is a GREEK INSTRUCTOR. I believe he knows both modern Greek & Koine Greek better than you do.
 

One Baptism

Active Member
Psalm 12:6-7 is excluded from that list because V7 is about PEOPLE, as I explained earlier. The AV makers believe that themselves, as I pointed out by posting their footnote. OTOH, you believe the false doctrine about it because it's found in Dr. Wilkinson's book.
Brother, look at those 'notes' on the page, it supports what I have said, for the 'marginal note' says at Psalms 12:6-7:

"+Heb. him. i. euery one of them"

This same note is also found in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, on Psalms 12:6-7:

"... them: etc. Heb. him, i.e. every one of them ..."

Its simply a more literalized reading [as the other notes also do], which emphasizes that "euery one of them" [God's words] are going to be preserved by God. Where does it disagree with what I have presented contextually in regards the association with mouth, lips, words of the wicked, which will pass away, to that of God's words, which would never pass away, and be preserved by Himself?

Benjamin G. Wilkinson, even quoted the more literalized reading:

"... Inspiration declares that this revelation has been under the special protection of all power in heaven and earth. “The words of the Lord are pure words,” says the Psalmist, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve every one of them, (margin) from this generation forever.”<191206>Psalm 12:6,7. ..." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 150/168 PDF​

Psalms 12:6 KJB - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 KJB - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

Leaving it the way they did, shows a more parallel reading:

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them ...​

Notice these

מןH4480 תצרנוH5341

imarot YHVH amarot horot Kesef tzaruf Baaliyl laaretz m'zuQaq shiv'atayim

aTah-YHVH Tish'm'rem TiTZ'reNu min-haDor zu l'olam
However, when looking at this, more closely, notice the first portion "Thou shalt keep them", [and the word "keep" is also to preserve] is a direct reference back to God's "words" in verse 6. If we accept the more literal translation of the marginal notation, for the second half, which says, "thou shalt preserve him", this too then fits with the context, since it would then be a reference to Jesus Christ being preserved from the congregation of the wicked forever [for all the scriptures testify of Jesus Christ, hence the many places which has Him saying, "I am poor and needy" [Psalms 40:17, 69:2, 70:5, 86:1, 109:22 KJB]], once He is raised from death. Jesus Christ is called the "word of God", John 1:1, etc KJB. He pours His words into us, His children [Matthew 9:17; Luke 5:28; John 15:7 KJB]. Thus, every one in Him would be preserved [John 6:39; Jude 1:1 KJB] along with Him. This would not negate the first half, in which God stated that He keeps His words, which includes Jesus words, Jesus Himself, and we who are in Him, being living epistles [Ezekiel 36:27; 2 Corinthians 3:3 KJB].

Nothing is wrong with the King James reading, neither how it is understood. It is deeper than is normally known.


psalm-121.jpg
 

One Baptism

Active Member
Again, I disagree. If we look at all the manuscript evidence, including the two most famous of the Alexandrian manuscripts, we see the evidence for including the passage is overwhelming.

In fact, if we look at Vaticanus we see that the scribe even left room for the last 12 verses because he knew something was missing from the text he was copying.

View attachment 1996
Agreed. MSS evidence is overwhelming for this [Mark 16:9-20]. It shows the NIV's bias in discarding all the evidence in favour of its Sinaiticus [aleph], Vaticanus [.B.], and even at that point is used deceptively by not divulging that full evidence.

The ending is found in [citing A Closer Look at the Early Manuscripts, Jack Moorman, page 85 [so it might be a little dated]]:

"... A, C, D, E, F, G, (H), K, (L), M ,S, U, V, (W), X, Y
Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, (Psi)
Omega, (099), (0112)
Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1,13
Old Latin: aur, c, d-suppl, ff2, g1,2
l, n, o ,q, r2, Vulg
Syr: pesh, cur, harc, pal Cop: sa
bo, fay
Goth, Arm, Eth
Also extant in 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257 ..."​
 

One Baptism

Active Member
I know Sam Gipp. He has visited with me in my church office. The problem is he can't read Greek!
Is he your brother [in Christ]? He, and I can read English [KJB] just fine [without getting into what he or I knows of Hebrew or Greek, or any other language for that matter].

How do you answer the Agape/Phileo test and the evidence as found in John 21:15-17 KJB, in regards "do you love [agape] me" [first time]. do you love [agape] me" [second time], and "do you love [phileo] me" [???, is this the first time, or the third time Jesus asked about love?] Jesus did not say do you love [agape] me three times. Jesus did not say "do you love [phileo] me" three times. What was asked three times?

As I read the plain English, Jesus simply asked, "Do you love me?" three times. Hence the "second" and "third" time.

It would be like me asking:

Do you want to jump over the creek?

Do you want to jump over the creek?

Do you want to leap over the creek?

How many times did I ask for the person to hop over the creek?
 

One Baptism

Active Member
(note: responding to my post about lady who only accepted words in red)

I talked to her for about 10-15 minutes - she was dogmatic about the red-letters - and would not budge- seems as though that was the only thing that was discussed. I finally told her - that we were not getting anywhere and I politely left.
Feel ya'. Red letters - Klopsch. I think it was one of those helpful ideas, though in certain instances this day, it is being used against Jesus, ie Matthew 24:15 KJB in modern printings. Jesus said all of the words in the text. Yet, in certain printing, they do not 'red' the "whoso readeth, let him understand', and make it look like Jesus never said it [when He surely did, contextually], but that some 'scribe' wrote it later etc, which then takes away the force of the need to read Daniel carefully.
 

One Baptism

Active Member
Sir, Doc Cassidy is a GREEK INSTRUCTOR. I believe he knows both modern Greek & Koine Greek better than you do.
But Christ Jesus [and His word in English, KJB] is my instructor. Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.

The whole idea, that I [or anyone] needs to be proficient [in any manner] in Greek [of any sort, modern Greek/Macedonian, etc or ancient, Koine, etc] is an error. Macedonians, Greeks, of today do not read, nor speak Koine Greek on the whole [I do not discount various linguists]. It is different in several ways. Also, reading the actual scraps of mss, papryii, codices etc is a far cry from reading a concordance, or interlinear, etc. Not even the same thing.

You do realize that the OT [being written in Hebrew] is quoted many times in the NT in Koine Greek? If a translation was good enough for the use in the early days of the Apostles, then a faithful translation of the preserved words of God into the English of the King James Bible, is good enough for me.

If Koine Greek is so important, why stop there? Why not go all the way back to Hebrew, Syriac/Chaldee?

Paul was more proficient in those languages. Jesus more than he.

Do you make the same distinctions between the Hebrew words translated as "love" in the OT, as you do in the Koine Greek of the NT?

Go back, read the actual texts [John 21:15-17] in your primary language.

1 Corinthians 14:19 KJB - Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.​
 
Last edited:

One Baptism

Active Member
Once again, One Baptism -

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the man-made KJVO myth? It's not found in your KJV, neither in the text, nor in the translators' extratextual material.

Without any AUTHORITY, all your pro-KJVO arguments are only hot air.

Your FAILURE TO ANSWER this question, which I've asked you thrice now, indicates you're stumped & clueless about why you're KJVO. Your continued failure to answer will reduce your credibility to zero.
I don't believe in your strawman definition of KJVO. I keep telling you that.
 

One Baptism

Active Member
Yes! I know that may be a a tough pill to swallow. But no doctrine has been compromised as a result of any of these errors. We can praise God for that!
I would disagree. I have several examples of "doctrinal" error in the modern versions, including the NIV. But this thread is tired already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top