KJVO?

[StanJ]

Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, responds:

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.
- Source: Daniel B. Wallace [1] , The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations

 

[sojourner4Christ]

I have given many sources, you schrug them off cause they cast light on your darkness! You went off on Wikipedia, yet you avoided and evaded the av1611.org site? Why is that?

You posted the fake encyclopedia site Wikipedia -- I didn’t! Rather, where’s your documentation?

What documentation, purportedly found on “the av1611.org site,” do you have to offer that proves your claim that the KJB is a revision? Answer: There isn’t any.

You can not name one modern bible that solely uses "Wescott-Hort... Some may reference but not use them.

lol @ “some may reference them.” Rather, here is that post again, with a dozen or so documentations (just in case you missed it the first time).

..."Wescott-Hort" in your attempt to cast doubt on their validity.

Westcott and Hort called themselves heretics ROFL.

Read the documentation from their biographies here.

Do you even know what they exactly did besides quoting some off the wall KJV Only site?

I do. I'll give you a tiny teaser.

You’ve already been shown the origin of your NIV and all such modern copyrighted versions. Two spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, changed the traditional Greek text in well over eight thousand places using the Vaticanus manuscript and other corrupt texts. In 1881, this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. All modern versions, including your NIV, are their product.

It’s true that a few pop occult books do not list Westcott and Hort in the lineage of the current channeling movement.

But if one wants to ignore all of the primary sources posted here and also found elsewhere, such as in their own biographies, and follow some hearsay sources (as you seem wont to do), TONS of those CAN be found to prove the new version editors, Westcott and Hort, were considered ‘mystics’ by their contemporaries and are classified as such by other scholars who used primary sources.

In addition to numerous references given in New Age Bible Versions, B. F. Westcott is identified as a “mystic” by the standard reference work of his day: The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). Princeton University Press’ recent book, The Christian Socialist Revival (1968, Peter d’A Jones) says B. F. Westcott was “a mystic” (p. 179). The highly respected Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics identifies both B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort as Alexandrian mystics (see ‘Alexandrian Theology’ et al.). The Occult Illustrated Dictionary even cites our bible correctors B. F. Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot and their ‘ghostly’ games.

And the claim by some, that B. F. Westcott’s ‘Ghostly Guild’ activities and Spiritualism were only a part of his younger days, is proven wrong through numerous quotes in New Age Bible Versions. He speaks, as late as 1880 (age 55), about “fellowship with the spiritual world” and “the dominion which the dead have over us” (p. 439).

Even Westcott’s son said his father had “faith” “in Spiritualism.” Webster defines ‘spiritualism’ as “the practices of spiritualists;” and “the belief that departed spirits hold intercourse with mortals by means of physical phenomena, as by rapping, or during abnormal mental states, as in trances, commonly manifested through a medium.” Webster defines necromancy as, “communication with the spirits of the dead.”

Also, any pretense that Wescott and Hort’s Ghostly Guild was ‘scientific’ rather than ‘spiritualistic’ is dissolved by the many references cited in the book. If it was scientific, it would not have aroused the “derision and even some alarm” by Cambridge colleagues who were “appalled” and referred to it as “mediaeval darkness.” The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology lists the Ghostly Guild Club as one in which “members related personal experiences concerning ghosts.”


.
.

 

[Enquirer]

Personally speaking, I have a great love for the KJV, it has a direct "straight in your face" style.
Most of the teachers and preachers whom I read and listen to use the KJV exclusively and I'm fine with that.
Of the 15 plus Bibles I have the majority are KJV, so it is fairly obvious that I love this translation.
I'm fairly certain that I have a book in my library that covers this very same topic - will look for it.

But on to the KJVO camp, what do you think of this ?

Contrary to what some in the KJO camp believe, the 1611 KJV was not without errors. In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the
version that is in use today. For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas”. Today, the KJV renders that verse
as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a rather significant difference. The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent
editions.

The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery. This edition
became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit
the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, in using Erasmus’ TR as the basis of the New Testament, many of Erasmus’ additions of margin notes into the
text of the verses found their way into the verses in the KJV.

Quote taken from Contender Ministries.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

But on to the KJVO camp, what do you think of this ?

Contrary to what some in the KJO camp believe, the 1611 KJV was not without errors. In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the
version that is in use today. For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas”. Today, the KJV renders that verse
as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a rather significant difference. The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent
editions.

The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery. This edition
became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit
the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, in using Erasmus’ TR as the basis of the New Testament, many of Erasmus’ additions of margin notes into the
text of the verses found their way into the verses in the KJV.

I will speak casually and try to keep this simple.

There are two separate things going on here.

It’s no mystery that when men print/copy things, they make mistakes -- honest mistakes that are corrected over time by honest men. It’s also no mystery that wanna-be scholars, desirous of vainglory, continually set up scenarios that mischaracterize the issue such as when they introduce the inflammatory label of “KJVO.”

But the issue is not about the KJV per se. The issue is about the text type from which the KJB is sourced. The KJB text type is representative of 99.9% of all extant evidence (manuscripts, autographs) -- over 5400 items. Conversely, the modern copyrighted version are representative of less than .1% of the evidence -- a handful of evidence that historically has been rejected as corrupt. ALL Bibles (not solely today’s English KJB) that were in the line of ascension to the KJB were likewise sourced from that same 99.9% Majority Text.

The issue has never been about men who made mistakes and corrected those (e.g.typography, typographical errors, and standardization of spelling). Changes/corrections? Yes. But legally qualifying it as a revision? Not even close. The detractors try hard to slam the KJB into a revison so they can justify their hundreds of modern copyrighted owned-by-men revi$ion$, sourced from the corrupted Minority Text. So the KJVO strawman ploy is hard for the naysayers to resist, and most believers who trust today’s English KJB as the pure, inspired, preserved word of God are not informed enough to show these bullies the door. These believers have been fed feel-goods by their clergy, and thus they are unprepared to defend their faith in the word of God, the KJB. Of course, the ‘textual critics’ love the steady flow of soon-to-be victims -- witness the twisted OP and the circuitous arguments they forever foist in this thread.

These wanna-be scholars and their yes-men, whose highest opinion is of themselves, and whose wiggle room exists solely in the secular world of textual criticism, are not difficult to expose with the voluminous documentation that is available to the diligent. Man’s field of textual criticism is a cesspool of self-absorbed wanna-be's swirling around strategically placed dogpiles dogma.

These posts will provoke grave silence, as none can answer them, except with trite and tiny vagaries and fierce invectives. They provoke the backbiting bark of watchdogs who cared not to read them thoroughly and be unsettled in their baseless opinions. The devil does not want those in a position of authority or influence (pastor, professor, amateur writer) to read these posts.

Thanks for your refreshingly straightforward post.

 

[ccfromsc]

Boy do you have a selective reading and memory.

This quote alone from av1611.org Brief History of the King James Version:
"The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time: "

That is from a KJV site. It admits there were a LOT of changes in the KJV.

Again I ask why do you wish to discredit modern translations? They are not "corrupted" or "satanic" as you have proclaimed. Why do you attack the Word of God?

 

[HammerStone]

It’s no mystery that when men print/copy things, they make mistakes -- honest mistakes that are corrected over time by honest men.

And the determinant factor here is you, which seems a little flawed. The KJV folks seem to suggest that certain mistakes are permissible, but they are the arbiters.

It’s also no mystery that wanna-be scholars, desirous of vainglory, continually set up scenarios that mischaracterize the issue such as when they introduce the inflammatory label of “KJVO.”

And this is what's funny, because the term is not derogatory. It's simply a statement of fact. KJVO people riff all "modern versions" (or insert pet jargon here) and adhere only to the KJV. There's some minor lip service paid to older versions (from which the KJV itself derived) but the statement is more or less made that the KJV is the only correct Bible version. That's completely fair to characterize it as KJV-only.

But the issue is not about the KJV per se. The issue is about the text type from which the KJB is sourced. The KJB text type is representative of 99.9% of all extant evidence (manuscripts, autographs) -- over 5400 items. Conversely, the modern copyrighted version are representative of less than .1% of the evidence -- a handful of evidence that historically has been rejected as corrupt. ALL Bibles (not solely today’s English KJB) that were in the line of ascension to the KJB were likewise sourced from that same 99.9% Majority Text.

And, many of the minority manuscripts are older. Most of those MT (Majority Texts) dates are 8 century and after. They are indeed more numerous, but they are newer copies. I've seen some wise minds who adhere to the MT make a case for the missing older manuscripts, but these guys are outside the KJVO fold. Additionally, you speak as if the MT is monolithic. Even it has significant variation amongst the texts. The KJV is actually translated from the Textus Receptus which is even a more exclusive strain of its MT parent.

If you advocate a MT-based translation, then I have no qualms. However, included in that tree would be NKJV.

The issue has never been about men who made mistakes and corrected those (e.g.typography, typographical errors, and standardization of spelling). Changes/corrections? Yes. But legally qualifying it as a revision? Not even close. The detractors try hard to slam the KJB into a revison so they can justify their hundreds of modern copyrighted owned-by-men revi$ion$, sourced from the corrupted Minority Text. So the KJVO strawman ploy is hard for the naysayers to resist, and most believers who trust today’s English KJB as the pure, inspired, preserved word of God are not informed enough to show these bullies the door. These believers have been fed feel-goods by their clergy, and thus they are unprepared to defend their faith in the word of God, the KJB. Of course, the ‘textual critics’ love the steady flow of soon-to-be victims -- witness the twisted OP and the circuitous arguments they forever foist in this thread.

And the problem with your logic is that the KJV folks did the same to the Geneva and Bishops Bibles when the KJV was translated and released.

As for the rest of it, anybody can claim that someone doesn't have credentials, but that is hardly demonstrating it. I can claim I am a better QB than Peyton Manning, but I don't have a superbowl ring, nor do I even have a contract. I can make that claim and some guys might believe me, but that doesn't make it true.

There are cases to be made for MT translations, but bad scholarship on the other side is hardly one of them.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Boy do you have a selective reading and memory.
This quote alone from av1611.org Brief History of the King James Version:
"The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time: "
That is from a KJV site. It admits there were a LOT of changes in the KJV.

For the umpteenth time, you have failed to prove your charge that “changes” qualify the English KJB as a revision.

Again I ask why do you wish to discredit modern translation.

And again, “modern translation” is working from ‘rediscovered’ corrupted and rejected evidence aka the Minority Text -- and not from the great body of evidence aka the Majority Text. Simple, very simple.

And the determinant factor here is you, which seems a little flawed. The KJV folks seem to suggest that certain mistakes are permissible, but they are the arbiters.

The easiest way to illustrate is via Derivative Copyright Law, which I have previously posted several times. Modern versions must deviate from the standard in order to qualify their invention for protection. Conversely, the KJB text type is a testimony from antiquity. Testimony cannot be copyrighted.

And this is what's funny, because the term is not derogatory. It's simply a statement of fact.

Naw, it’s one more modern day perjorative label, just another in a never-ending line of devices of the enemy with which to engage in an assault upon the inspired, preserved word of God and thus his people.

JVO people riff all "modern versions" (or insert pet jargon here) and adhere only to the KJV. There’s some minor lip service paid to older versions (from which the KJV itself derived) but the statement is more or less made that the KJV is the only correct Bible version.

No question. I already explained that. Their are ill-informed zealots in any endeavor. The question to ask yourself is, Since when is it Godly to return evil for evil?

That's completely fair to characterize it as KJV-only.

Whatever sews your shirt. But it is un-fair, ungodly, to appropriate the phenomenon as a label, a weapon with which to vilify.

And, many of the minority manuscripts are older. Most of those MT (Majority Texts) dates are 8 century and after. They are indeed more numerous, but they are newer copies.

Older is not better. That’s a lie hatched in the secular pit of textual criticism. You either believe God’s word (Psalm 12 etc.) i.e. his promise that he has preserved his pure inspired word forever, or you do not; that he has magnified his word above his name, or he has not.

I've seen some wise minds who adhere to the MT make a case for the missing older manuscripts, but these guys are outside the KJVO fold.

I am ”outside the KJV fold” -- but those blinded by their agendas cannot discern that.

Additionally, you speak as if the MT is monolithic. Even it has significant variation amongst the texts. The KJV is actually translated from the Textus Receptus which is even a more exclusive strain of its MT parent.

Agian, it’s not about ”changes.” It’s about authenticity. It’s about a text type -- not about a given bible per se. The bottom line is that, concerning the OP, detractors here have failed to prove that the King James Bible qualifies as a revision.

And the problem with your logic is that the KJV folks did the same to the Geneva and Bishops Bibles when the KJV was translated and released.

It’s only a “problem” if you’re a critic of the text i.e. a ‘textual critic.’ The Geneva and Bishop’s were both inspired, as well -- they were drawn from the same Well.

As for the rest of it, anybody can claim that someone doesn't have credentials, but that is hardly demonstrating it. I can claim I am a better QB than Peyton Manning, but I don't have a superbowl ring, nor do I even have a contract. I can make that claim and some guys might believe me, but that doesn't make it true.

Agreed. As readers well know, I am a sticker for documentation -- an area in which the anti-KJVO folks fail miserably.

There are cases to be made for MT translations, but bad scholarship on the other side is hardly one of them.

When you buy into the secular world of textual criticism, you buy into the entire manmade package. Scholars have corrupted the covenant and led many astray (Malachi chapter 2). We are not to be found among them.

If you advocate a MT-based translation, then I have no qualms. However, included in that tree would be NKJV.

As another copyrighted modern version, there’s nothing ‘new’ about the NKJV. It’s KJV in name only.

Denver, we each presently have much on our plate to account for. It might be profitable if we discussed this further privately, if you wish.

-- Richard, Jesus Christ’s assembly at New Zealand

 

[ccfromsc]

Again you are in denial. I have made point and point only to go against your stubborness.

Try this site: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#?1#?1#WebrootPlugIn#?1#?1#PhreshPhish#?1#?1#agtpwd

May God have mercy on you for attacking his scripture.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Again you are in denial. I have made point and point only to go against your stubborness.

Try this site: http://www.bible.ca/...sh#?1#?1#agtpwd

May God have mercy on you for attacking his scripture.

Folks, this is the blindness that results when one is conditioned in their thought processes by the god of this world. Pray for that man, that the King would remove the scales from his eyes.

Incidentally, the site URL he posted is titled, Were KJV Translators Inspired?

Obviously, he (and his favored site) would say "no." What he still fails to comprehend is that I also would say "no." He's lost the plot (if he ever had it in the first instance).

And I would say "no" only because the word of God says "no":

All scripture is given by inspiration of God... [for what purpose?]...That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. -- 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 AV. Men/"translators" are not inspired; God's word is inspired.

 

[Enquirer]

@ s4c ... after following and reading the link that ... ccfromsc ... posted I can only sat that you believe what you believe because you want to ... this is your
personal choice ... and it's ok to make that choice ... but the facts speak for themselves.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

@ s4c ... after following and reading the link that ... ccfromsc ... posted I can only sat that you believe what you believe because you want to ... this is your
personal choice ... and it's ok to make that choice ... but the facts speak for themselves.

You don't have any facts, Enquirer. All you got is a link to someone else's opinions. We can read links all day long. It's no better than your or my opinions. Rather, where's your primary or secondary documentation? Again, you don't have anything other than your opinions. Selah.

The copious primary and secondary documentation I have posted stands unrefuted. The facts are crystal that the KJB is not a "revision" -- never was.

 

[ccfromsc]

The KJV translators were no more or less inspired than those who help translate modern day translations. Or are you going to cast aspersions on modern day translators? Besides you have never denied Erasmus as being a translator... you do realize that he aand a couple of others were Roman Catholic? I ask you this: What of previous English translations? Were they of "inspired" type that you so decree? Also if the KJV Translators translated the bible from the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, why cannot modern day scholars translate them? The greek, hebrew etc. has not changed, so why cannot a modern scholar translate it so?

BTW alluding that I am "under the god of this world" is tricky way of saying I am of satan. That is real low. Jesus is the Christ. He died on the cross for you, me and everyone else. By His blood I have been redeemed. You can too be redeemed.

 

[StanJ]

The one constant with being deceived is that those that are, cannot recognize truth no matter where it comes from. We of course cannot acquiesce to the lies with silence, so it must be addressed. As Dr. Wallace rightly discerns, it is a conspiracy of division, and is mostly full of proponents who have NO relationship with God or Jesus at all. Theirs is a dogmatic POV, which allows for no truth despite the obvious holes and errors in their false teaching.
The ad hominems from s4c are typical of those who cannot make their assertions stick. If you can't defeat the message then attack the messenger. Eph 2:19 of her beloved AV disagrees with her member title and she doesn't even realize it.
I'm pretty sure she has been soundly refuted as all KJVO ers have been. I see no reason to keep this thread going Hammer.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

The KJV translators were no more or less inspired than those who help translate modern day translations. Or are you going to cast aspersions on modern day translators? Besides you have never denied Erasmus as being a translator... you do realize that he aand a couple of others were Roman Catholic? I ask you this: What of previous English translations? Were they of "inspired" type that you so decree? Also if the KJV Translators translated the bible from the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, why cannot modern day scholars translate them? The greek, hebrew etc. has not changed, so why cannot a modern scholar translate it so?

BTW alluding that I am "under the god of this world" is tricky way of saying I am of satan. That is real low. Jesus is the Christ. He died on the cross for you, me and everyone else. By His blood I have been redeemed. You can too be redeemed.

Which question shall we discuss this time? Pick one.

I see no reason to keep this thread going Hammer.

...another sore loser? He's tried that tactic before, but this time, I do not disagree, as my job is finished. In the meantime, let's give ccfromsc one more opp.

 

[ccfromsc]

As I just stated and you avoided to answer:
The KJV translators were no more or less inspired than those who help translate modern day translations. Or are you going to cast aspersions on modern day translators? Besides you have never denied Erasmus as being a translator... you do realize that he aand a couple of others were Roman Catholic? I ask you this: What of previous English translations? Were they of "inspired" type that you so decree? Also if the KJV Translators translated the bible from the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, why cannot modern day scholars translate them? The greek, hebrew etc. has not changed, so why cannot a modern scholar translate it so? Please answer this rather than avoid it like before.

To everyone here, I hope I done some service by arguing for modern translations. I also hope that grace of Christ can bless everyone here who has read these messages. Go to some of the new translations/versions web sites and check them out. If you have questions please do not hesitate to ask them, the bible societies will answer. But remember this: Jesus is the point and answer. That is why the Bible is there in the first place....regardless of translation.

 

[Enquirer]

@ s4c ... I don't have to have any documentation ... the document I've read is enough and you have the link provided.
Did you actually read it ?
Also just because someone else wrote it does not mean it's wrong.

My question to you is this ... what version of the KJV are you supporting ... it most certainly cannot be the 1611 one,
because that one has been changed due to it's totally archaic language ?

Something that most KJVO people either do not know themselves or choose to ignore.

A new believer once asked me, "Why does Jesus say 'suffer the little children to come unto me', does Jesus want children to suffer" ?
You see this is an issue for young believers, words like that throw people and sow confusion, and there is not always someone around
to explain that to them.

God is not the author of confusion, He wants people to understand what He is saying.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.
The KJV translators were no more or less inspired than those who help translate modern day translations. Previously replied: post #129. Or are you going to cast aspersions on modern day translators? Previously replied: "Modern day translators" Westcott and Hort called themselves heretics. Besides you have never denied Erasmus as being a translator... You have never asked. you do realize that he aand a couple of others were Roman Catholic? You presume and offer no documentation. I ask you this: What of previous English translations? Were they of "inspired" type that you so decree? Previously replied: post #127. Rather, God "decreed" that he has inspired his scripture for us -- 2 Tim. 3:16. You'd best get a hold on his word, and not on man's copyrighted inventions. Also if the KJV Translators translated the bible from the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, why cannot modern day scholars translate them? They can, but their error is that they choose corrupted "Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin" texts. The greek, hebrew etc. has not changed, so why cannot a modern scholar translate it so? God is finished with "greek, hebrew etc." God has always provided the COMMON man with the COMMON Bible in the COMMON language of the day to do one thing: EVANGELIZE the world. God has magnified his word above all his name. Psalm 138:2.

ccfromsc, if you have further questions, please ask them. But be advise that if you cannot control your input to one decent question or comment per post, as I have continually requested of you and which request you have rudely ignored, then I will not reply to you, which would mean we're finished playing our game. Have a nice day.

@ s4c ... I don't have to have any documentation ... the document I've read is enough and you have the link provided.
Did you actually read it ?

I read everything that comes my way -- after I’ve prayed about it.

Also just because someone else wrote it does not mean it's wrong.

Anyone can, and usually does, write any thing. But I don’t deal in opinions; neither does God. Show me the documentation, the documented facts.

My question to you is this ... what version of the KJV are you supporting ... it most certainly cannot be the 1611 one,

I answered that question previously here.

...because that one has been changed due to it's totally archaic language ?

Again, it’s not about “change.” It’s about text-type. It’s about God (not man) preserving his inspired pure word for ever, as per Psalm chap.12.

You see this is an issue for young believers, words like that throw people and sow confusion, and there is not always someone around
to explain that to them.

This thread is strong meat. One would not surf here for a mere casual read. The enemy has his agents everywhere (and God has his).

There are many who would make sport of God’s word. There are dangers:

...Yea, hath God said...? -- Genesis 3:1

Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word... -- Mark 4:15

God is not the author of confusion, He wants people to understand what He is saying.

Exactly. So why do people turn to men’s faulty inventions for wisdom, when God has already given us everything we need? Wanna-be scholars have never been the answer to the confusion. Rather, God says they are responsible for corrupting the covenant and leading many astray (Malachi chap. 2).

Scripture tells us many times to trust no man. Indeed, we should not trust any man, including ourselves. The Bible says, "Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Micah 7:5). It also says "Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders" (Jeremiah 9:4), "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered" (Proverbs 28:26), "But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:9), "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's" (2 Corinthians 10:7), "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:5), and finally, "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit." (Jeremiah 7:8)

 

[ccfromsc]

Again Wescott and Hort did not write the modern translations. Where do you get this drivel? Name one modern day translation that uses Wescott and Hort? I have asked that and get .... nothing. One I know of referenced them, but did not use them. Do you even realize what they did? They combined several older manuscripts in the greek to get one. Kinda like what translators do in translations!! Your KJV translators did the same. God is not finished with the Greek, Hebrew! Where does it say that God chose only the KJV? What of translations into other languages? What you descibe is a cult not a religion based on God!

 

[StanJ]

There is no list that will show the WH texts as being widely used, as is evidenced by the lack of ANY proof on this thread. It was superseded in 1898 by the Novum Testamentum Graece, and subsequently by the NA Greek New Testament in 1966, and most recently the Editio Critica Maior has been used as the basis for the NA GNT.
The ONLY modern English translation today being used extensively that comes from the WH text, is the NWT, used exclusively by JWs. So my conclusion would be that KJVO supporters are just as deceived as JWs are. Both rely on erroneous English translations.

 

[Abeliever]

I first tried to read the Bible some 36 years ago. All I knew of was the KJV and to my great dismay I couldn't understand it. I really had no idea there were other translations. One night, in what was almost a miracle, this funny looking little man handed me what I thought was a Christian Tract. But it wasn't. To my delight it was the NIV of John's Gospel. Back then the NIV was brand new, this is before Zondervan took it over. I ordered the whole Bible in NIV and that's the one I read every word of. It was really a no frills Bible and the type was quite small. That didn't matter back then, but it does now. So as of late, I'm using a NKJV I bought about 20 years ago. The type is bigger and it's a red letter Bible. I really like that. The odd thing is I still can't comprehend old English. If I could, I'd probably read the KJV. It sounds poetic when read aloud and I like that.