THE FAKE KJV ONLY ARGUMENT

[Wrangler]

So love of the Truth has nothing to do with the emotions, huh?

Brother I'm trying to agree with you. Don't make it hard! LOL The example of Jesus emotions from Mark 3 were directed at people not abstract concepts like "truth." If you don't think there is a difference, then bless your heart and make a blessed day.

 

[Justified]

I actually believe 'some'... folks NEED... to have more 'feelings' in this day and time...

2 Tim 3:2-5
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
KJV

Not at all my point. The point is that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). So, to say, "And yeah you know in your heart that the later modern Bible translations are a steering away from what 1,800 years of Christianity has relied upon with the Traditional Texts," is entirely subjective. Stick to facts, not feelings, when it comes to arguing this topic, lest your bias lead to ignore the facts and come to an erroneous conclusion.

 

[Wrangler]

I pray that eventually there is some middle ground that can be found instead of dismissing it completely.

I would not trouble the almighty with that prayer!

if someone wants t o study archaic books, knock yourself out. I have ZERO interest and only antipathy for Spending my time.

 

[doctrox]

@doctrox Interesting sig!

Have you researched the doc's listed therein and verified the claim?

 

[Davy]

My prayer is not so that you will have to read the KJV ever again, but rather so that you may be relieved of this disgruntlement that seems to be eating you up on the inside. Of course, I'm also preaching to myself when I say that.



What makes it an archaic book? Is it Elizabeth-era English?

I've never heard of anyone referring to the work of Shakespeare, or other poets of his day, as archaic literature. In fact, Elizabethan speech was already considered outdated in 1611. They were simply continuing to build on the foundation laid by William Tyndale.

So says a supporting Catholic of Codex Vaticanus. Thing is, the early Catholic Church didn't use nor support Vaticanus.

 

[Wrangler]

rather so that you may be relieved of this disgruntlement that seems to be eating you up on the inside.

LOL. Disgruntled at IDOLATRY perhaps. There aren't too many threads trying to keep the hope alive for other translations.

What makes it an archaic book?

The IDOLATRY of this question is maddening. KJVO folks always act like others have to proof their IDOL is false.

What an absurd question! I can read and instantly tell the work is archaic. It's not just the vocabulary but the sentence structure. It's like reading a work by Yoda, "I hope, right, you are." Your search engine works as well as mine. Excerpts from Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word

• One of the most irrational and annoying cults of our time, because it is so unscholarly and so easy to disprove, is that of King James Onlyism
• If you are a KJV-only person who wants to argue, please don’t email me. If there is ONE ERROR in translation, then it is not what you claim. There are countless errors, and it is certainly not what you claim. In fact, the KJV is a rather mediocre – even poor – translation. The number of errors in it excludes it from being a great or exceptional translation.
• For those who are honestly seeking the truth, just check out these errors and then be pleased to join the ranks of normal, rational thinking Christians who are willing to put this nutty theology behind them, once and for all. And as a question you should ask yourself as you contemplate this cult, “Where in Scripture does God reveal that the KJV is the only acceptable translation?” If it were so, He would have clued us into this. Rather, it is a translation by man, fallible man, and it contains man’s many failings in translation.

 

[Davy]

Well, I'm certainly not a Catholic, but I do recognize the importance of consulting the entirety of the available manuscript evidence that we possess today. Those who work on various translation committees consider what's found in the Byzantine text, Codex Vaticanus, as well as early papyrus fragments, and render what’s closer to how the originals were likely to have read.

That's just it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are considered Alexandrian Greek texts from the area of Alexandria, Egypt, not Byzantine from the area of Antioch where disciples of Christ first called themselves "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

The Byzantine text type represents the Majority Text, which means the majority of existing Greek New Testament manuscripts, and was used for the Greek Textus Receptus translated for Reformation and Protestant translations of the New Testament (i.e., like those Bible translations prior to the 1880's, like the 1611 KJV Bible for only one example).

Vaticanus does not include the Mark 16:9-20 verses that are in the Majority Text, and is missing the Book of Revelation, and chops off Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14.

Vaticanus has a blank space where those Mark 16:9-20 verses would have appeared, the only place in that text that has that blank space.

Vaticanus is missing 2,877 words found in the Traditional Greek text (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p.75).

Codex Sinaiticus, which Hort and Wescott also used in their new 1881 Greek translation, is an even worse example of editing and modification. Tischendorf found the first part of it laying in a waste basket at a monastery; they were using it to make fires with. Years later, he claimed he found the rest of Sinaiticus and the first printing was in 1860.

Wescott and Hort in their letters to each other, made public after they had died, declared their hatred for the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Text, and planned to overthrow it and thus those Bible translations which Protestants used. You can find photo-copies of that on archive.org.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Have you researched the doc's listed therein and verified the claim?

The Herpes "Virus" seems just as fake. It isn't a virus in my opinion, but it is a piece of nerve tissue and nucleic acid. I am very skeptical viruses multiplying outside of bacteria and fungi. It would seem viruses are only the indicator of types of diseases.

 

[Wrangler]

Well, I can't imagine that choosing to remain disgruntled, regardless of the source that caused it, is a healthy place to be.

LOL. Turning IDOLATRY on its head. One Ad Homenim after another. If you want to read a certain translation, allow others the same courtesy without making it seem like the trinity has been displaced with a quartney:

1. F
2. S
3. HS
4. KJV

 

[Wrangler]

Sorry, but any honest person who has read through my posts knows that's a gross misrepresentation. You are welcome to use whatever version of the Bible makes you the most comfortable, and of course it would be ridiculous to place an English translation into the same category as the Triune Godhead.

Free at last! Thank God almighty! I am Free at last!

Sadly, many KJVO's don't acknowledge what you just did. I had a good friend for decades tell me that I have to read the KJV, like it were some sick sacrament or something. He couldn't get it through his IDOLATROUS mind that reading archaic languages strongly repulses me. Jesus is our only mediator to God and the KJV is our only path to Jesus they more than suggest.

I used to not know what idolatry is. Now I know.

 

[shepherdsword]

The KJV is an excellent translation. However, one needs to consult other translations as well as the original texts to get a complete picture. No translation is perfect.

 

[Davy]

Advocates of the Majority Text position, if they are attempting to be consistent anyway, must dismiss 1 John 5:7 that is present in the KJV, as that reading is absent from the majority of manuscripts.

Doesn't matter, since there are plenty examples in other Bible Scriptures that reveal Lord Jesus Christ's status within The Godhead... and they are a lot more clear and stronger declarations...

Matt 1:21-23
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
KJV


Heb 1:1-8
1 God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said He at any time, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee?" And again, "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?
6 And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."
7 And of the angels He saith, "Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire."
8 But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom."
(A quote from Psalms 45:6 where "O God" is Hebrew Elohyim)
KJV


Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
KJV
(Jesus Christ is The Prince of Peace - Melchizedek is King of Peace, and Jesus is High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek - Hebrews 7)

 

[Davy]

The KJV is an excellent translation. However, one needs to consult other translations as well as the original texts to get a complete picture. No translation is perfect.

This is true, but only partially, as the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is actually the word for Passover in the manuscripts. Jesus is our Passover sacrificed for us, Apostle Paul said. All English Bible translations have those kind of additions in them. And that's only half of the point.

Some English translations are setup hoaxes. When they claim to be just a revision of the original, they actually use additional Greek manuscripts which the original translators did not use. Erasmus translated the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text) from Byzantine Majority texts.

"When Erasmus classified the texts into two classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus, he specified the positive grounds upon receiving the former and rejecting the latter. The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." ​

(An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff)​

​

Erasmus who did the Greek Textus Receptus translation mostly from Byzantine Majority texts, was aware of the heresies by some within the Alexandrian, Egypt school of Christians. Erasmus thus rejected the Alexandrian manuscripts as "corrupt", of which Codex Vaticanus is an Alexandrian text.

The New King James Version Bible (NKJV) adds readings from the corrupt Alexandrian texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) which the 1611 KJV translators did not use, nor did Erasmus even have Sinaiticus which was only discovered in the 1850's.

​

​

 

[Wrangler]

Doesn't matter, since there are plenty examples in other Bible Scriptures that reveal Lord Jesus Christ's status within The Godhead.... they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Putting aside that there is no "Godhead" in the Bible, are all people who are called Emmanuel part of the Godhead? If not, why not?

Peter is called rock but that doesn't literally mean he is a rock. I wonder how you pick and choose?

 

[MonoBiblical]

He couldn't get it through his IDOLATROUS mind that reading archaic languages strongly repulses me.

Why even try then?

 

[doctrox]

Understand the attack we are under.

They don't.

 

[Rockerduck]

I agree. While the Johannine Comma may indeed be a true phrase supported by other sections of Scripture, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that it was authored by St. John the Apostle, regardless of which manuscript tradition one considers to be authoritative.

The Johannine Comma was in writings before the 4th century predating the Vaticanus and the, pulled out of the trash can, Sinaiticus. So, it was talked about in Church discussions, therefore it was in manuscripts. 1 John 5:7-8 is written exactly like John would write it. 3 witnesses in Heaven and 3 witnesses on Earth. Plus the fact that there's a Trinity in other places in the bible.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Johannine Comma was in writings before the 4th century predating the Vaticanus and the, pulled out of the trash can, Sinaiticus. So, it was talked about in Church discussions, therefore it was in manuscripts. 1 John 5:7-8 is written exactly like John would write it. 3 witnesses in Heaven and 3 witnesses on Earth. Plus the fact that there's a Trinity in other places in the bible.

Trashcan... Sounds old, but it was new and valueless. The Johannine Comma is not trinitarian.

 

[Rockerduck]

Trashcan... Sounds old, but it was new and valueless. The Johannine Comma is not trinitarian.

Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit is.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit is.

Notice the greek kai is not between Father and Word.