Your Thoughts?

[Yeshua1]

How was linking that site an answer?
Let's try again: Name some relatively well-know preacher or ministry that teaches this today.

Those into KJVO?

 

[Salty]

His version did not have 1John 5:7, in this case it was the French Louis Segond.

Thank you

That version- is that in French? Sounds like it could be JW ??

 

[George Antonios]

Thank you

That version- is that in French? Sounds like it could be JW ??

You're welcome. Yes, French, and no, not JW, it's the main evangelical version of the French-speaking world.
And they followed the Americans.
Like I said, that verse is missing from a number of mainstream English versions too.
The Arabic world is following suit. The same verse changes are happening to our Arabic Bible.
Do you know how hard it is to reach Catholics and Muslims with the changes that have now become mainstream in most versions?

 

[StephenUSAFVet]

How about the teaching that only really saved come thru preaching and teaching the Kjv alone?

Yes I have heard that before and it’s almost cult-like!

 

[StephenUSAFVet]

You will like the upcoming Legacy nas then!

I’m very excited to get my hands on it and study it when the full text is available.

 

[SavedByGrace]

1 John is

how good is your Greek grammar? If you are able to read this passage in the Greek text, then I will send you some grammitical problems with the passage, from verses 6-10, which the removal of The Three Heavenly Witnesses, causes. Put the Words back into the text, and problem solved!

I can say that 100%, the internal evidence, which is far more important than any Greek manuscript, says that, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", IS the Original Writing of the Apostle John.

 

[JonC]

When two English translations have readings with a different meaning then which reading is right is an issue.

The issue to remember is that each are translations. W cannot expect less of Christians reading Scripture than we would of an individual reading a translated literary work. We have to remember these are translations and consider the process of translation.

There is an issue of holding one translated verse over another because that verse, in a favored translation, emphasizes a biblical truth. Sometimes these truths, while valid, are being emphasized by the translator and not the text itself.

One may, for example, look at a passage (Phil:2) in the KJV and the ESV, concluding the ESV is wrong because it does not emphasize the diety of Christ. BUT the verse in question is not about the deity of Christ. The ESV is accurate, as is the KJV.

Another example is John 3:16. The HCSB offers a much more precise (to the Greek) than does the KJV (which can be interpreted as God loving the world "so much") The KJV is not wrong, but it takes study not to assume the passage is speaking of how much God loved the world rather than how God loved the world. Both translations are correct, but the HCSB (in this case) is closer to the meaning.

The point is Scripture is not intended to be taken apart and studied piecemill.

 

[37818]

How can saying the same thing different ways mean one less accurate?

It would not be the same. Otherwise it would not be different. Luke 4:4.

 

[37818]

I can say that 100%, the internal evidence, which is far more important than any Greek manuscript, says that, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", IS the Original Writing of the Apostle John.

Let us start a thread to make that case. Have you read Adam Clarke's essay on 1 John 5:7?

 

[robycop3]

The 1611 translators themselves did not see their finished work as being either perfect or final word in translations!

If more KJVOs would read the AV 1611's PREFACE...

 

[37818]

I can say that 100%, the internal evidence, which is far more important than any Greek manuscript, says that, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", IS the Original Writing of the Apostle John.

Let us start a thread to make that case. Have you read Adam Clarke's essay on 1 John 5:7-8?

 

[George Antonios]

One may, for example, look at a passage (Phil:2) in the KJV and the ESV, concluding the ESV is wrong because it does not emphasize the diety of Christ. BUT the verse in question is not about the deity of Christ.

This is a post-hoc rationalization.

 

[George Antonios]

If more KJVOs would read the AV 1611's PREFACE...

You both seem unaware that consciousness of inspiration is not necessary for inspiration.
Paul repented of having written 1Corinthians at one point.
Caiaphas prophesied unawares.

 

[37818]

The issue to remember is that each are translations. W cannot expect less of Christians reading Scripture than we would of an individual reading a translated literary work. We have to remember these are translations and consider the process of translation.

There is an issue of holding one translated verse over another because that verse, in a favored translation, emphasizes a biblical truth. Sometimes these truths, while valid, are being emphasized by the translator and not the text itself.

One may, for example, look at a passage (Phil:2) in the KJV and the ESV, concluding the ESV is wrong because it does not emphasize the diety of Christ. BUT the verse in question is not about the deity of Christ. The ESV is accurate, as is the KJV.

Another example is John 3:16. The HCSB offers a much more precise (to the Greek) than does the KJV (which can be interpreted as God loving the world "so much") The KJV is not wrong, but it takes study not to assume the passage is speaking of how much God loved the world rather than how God loved the world. Both translations are correct, but the HCSB (in this case) is closer to the meaning.

The point is Scripture is not intended to be taken apart and studied piecemill.

It would seem we do not agree. It is nevertheless true a word can have shades of meaning that two translations would translate differently.

 

[robycop3]

I have an your point is?... Now let me make mine... There was a preacher among our people... The Old Line/Old School Primitive Baptist, who went to be with the Lord last year at the age of eighty... His name was Elder Sonny Pyles but he went by the name of Brother Sonny... A dirt farmer preacher ( the most knowledgeable preacher of the word of God KJV, I've ever heard in my life) from Graham Texas... Every year him and a group of other KJV preachers, would send out a challenge to those of other translations for a debate upon which is the true word of God... He could defend the KJV like no man I've ever heard... Brother Sonny would say what others would not and the way he saw it... Put up or shut up... Time and time again they refused... Every challenge they put forth, letters, phone calls, emails, ect, those of other translation made another excuse and refused to meet... I'm sure there are others like Brother Sonny, who will take up the torch but a true prince is fallen in Israel, who could defend the (written word of God KJV) like no one else... So don't tell me that your translations even come close to the KJV... God left his people his Bible, you just don't want to acknowledge it is!... Brother Glen



Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Likely, he only TRIED to defend the KJVO myth. He was likely trying to stop a train with his hands. The KJVO myth isn't found in the KJV itself, & its translators' preface shows even THEY weren't "KJVO".

The KJV is just one English translation among many that came along at a good time when the British Empire was strong. It was good for its time, just as the Model T was the best car of its time, but, like the Mosel T, it's been replaced with newer, better versions. Just as Mr. Creedy in the Midas commercials stuck to his Model T, some people still like the KJV.

The DIFFICULTY comes when one says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there. This is patently-false, & is a man-made myth invented by Satan to cause problems.

 

[robycop3]

You both seem unaware that consciousness of inspiration is not necessary for inspiration.
Paul repented of having written 1Corinthians at one point.
Caiaphas prophesied unawares.

Well, there's no evidence the AV makers were more-inspired than was Tyndale, Coverdale, or later makers of valid translations.

 

[George Antonios]

Well, there's no evidence the AV makers were more-inspired than was Tyndale, Coverdale, or later makers of valid translations.

No one said they were.

 

[Yeshua1]

how good is your Greek grammar? If you are able to read this passage in the Greek text, then I will send you some grammitical problems with the passage, from verses 6-10, which the removal of The Three Heavenly Witnesses, causes. Put the Words back into the text, and problem solved!

I can say that 100%, the internal evidence, which is far more important than any Greek manuscript, says that, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", IS the Original Writing of the Apostle John.

The big problem is that there is very little textual evidence that can show that passage was valid, as even Eramus could not found any evidence for it to be included until his third Greek edition!

 

[JonC]

This is a post-hoc rationalization.

No, it is not.

One could argue, for example, that the HCSB denies God's great love because it interprets John 3:16 (correctky) to read "in this way" rather than "so".

But that would be a foolish argument not because of John 3:16 but because the fact the HCSB affirms the great love of God.

It would be foolish to insist the HCSB denies God's great love because of that passage.

Likewise, it would be asinine to believe the ESV's interpretation of Phil. 2 denies the deity of Christ because the ESV repeatedly affirms Christ's deity (it does not have to read Christ's diety into every passage).

 

[JonC]

It would seem we do not agree. It is nevertheless true a word can have shades of meaning that two translations would translate differently.

True. And people can pick apart pices of the whole to make arguments.

Which doctrines do you believe are present in the KJV but absent in the ESV (or vise versa)?