Featured Some Questions For KJVO Folks

Since the KJV is a revision of those pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'], you should become familar with them.

There are the same type differences between those pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and the NKJV.

You may have been misinformed concerning the NKJV by biased, unrealible KJV-only sources.

Would it not involve the use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] to attack the NKJV for the same type changes and revisions that the KJV also made to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision?

 

Would this be an example of the use of divers measures?

The KJV translators made use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made by a Jesuit in their making revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').

Did the Jesuit translator Gregory Martin of the Rheims New Testament have an agenda?

Did not the Church of England translators of the KJV have an agenda [an agenda to support Church of England doctrinal views and the divine-right-of-kings view of King James I]?

 

I feel no need or desire to become familiar with these versions.

So?

Have you ever considered that you may be misinformed?

I didn't attack the NKJV, I responded because I had been asked about it. I simply said I didn't like it, I didn't say why. Hardly an attack.

You on the other hand start numerous threads to attack the KJB (constantly trying to point out errors) and those who hold to it.

Folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

I have some articles I've written on the KJV borrowing from the Rheims version which is total non sense, if you want to PM me for it. I can't post it on here because others will whine to the mods that I am "attacking their Bibles" even though it's perfectly OK for them to attack the KJV. They revel in attacking so-called "mistakes" in the KJV, but how often do you seem them attacking the mistakes in theirs?

I can't imagine trying to witness to someone with 20 different "Bibles". Even the atheists hold that over our heads:

"CHRISTIANITY: Sadistic God; Useless Savior; 30,000+ Versions of “Truth”; Promotes Hate, Calls it “Love”. Atheism: Simply Reasonable. Join American Atheists!"

If I were unsaved and someone tried to convince me that the Bible is God's word, and then stopped every 2 minutes to tell me "a better rendering would be.." "this was unfortunately translated as..." "although this verse says this, a more accurate translation based on the 'best' and 'oldest' manuscripts says..." Good night by the time he's finished I'm ready to call the police because you look more like someone try to sell me something. Why would I believe in a Bible that the witness himself doesn't believe?

They claim arguing for one Bible is confusing to unbelievers, but it looks like the exact opposite. I have yet to see a New International Shakespear edition of Romeo and Juliet.

 

The atheists also praise the KJV as being "timeless". So where does that leave you?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-king-james-bible-49686/

 

Are you suggesting that the truth is "total nonsense" to you?

It is a well-established and documented fact that the KJV translators borrowed renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

There is even firsthand proof from a KJV translator himself who acknowledged that fact.

You can post the truth here.

 

Then you're missing out on a lotta helpful info in Scripture study, not giving the Holy Spirit more to work with as He teaches you.

So...You should learn those differences insteada blindly being KJVO.

I've checked out many of the SOURCES of Logos' info and have found that he's far-better-informed than any KJVO I know of.

People like or dislike something for a reason. Have toiy ever considered your reason(s) for not liking the NKJV may be wrong?

Have you or any other KJVO ever proven any of those errors NOT to have been errors? NEWP!

Unless their aim is very accurate, which that of KJVOs isn't.

 

MMRRPP! WRONG!

Logos, and others, have posted PROOF that the AV borrowed a little from the Rheims version, let alone, the FACT that an AV translator admitted as much!

No, it'd be attacked cuz it's NOT TRUE!

Whenever someone claims their pet version is perfect. So far, only some KJVOs have made that claim (incorrectly) for THEIR fave version.

Why not? Long as they're valid versions, they only reinforce the truth. And I believe we all know atheists, like KJVOs, are always desperately making excuses to try to justify what they know, deep inside, simply ISN'T TRUE.

Many preachers work initially from the KJV because they know some members of their audience will be carrying KJVs, but when they come across a passage that they believe is rendered better in a newer version, they're gonna say so. Conversely, I've heard non-KJVO preachers refer to a KJV rendering then they believe the KJV's is better.

If I'm witnessing to an individual or small group, I'll use the version THE LISTENER wishes for me to use. If the listener(s) don't specify any given version, I'll choose one, based upon what I think is the best one for the situation. For example, an elderly audience is gonna be more familiar with the KJV, so that's what I'll use.

That's cuz Shakespeare is dead; when he died, his work became frozen in time. OTOH, God is alive, still superintending His word.

OF COURSE we Freedom Readers know the "One-Version-Only" can be confusing cuz it's **FALSE**! A lie will generally confuse one who's seeking the TRUTH.

You have been shown the MAN-MADE ORIGIN of the KJVO myth, for which you have no argument. You KNOW KJVO was derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two DISHONEST authors, one of which used legal plagiarism extensively(Legal, but still DISHONEST, as the original author was not acknowledged whatsoever), and the other used DISHONESTY in not mentioning his source's CULT AFFILIATION.

And you KNOW that part of being a Baptist is not believing any extrascriptural doctrines of worship, not found at all in Scripture, either directly or by clear implication. And you KNOW KJVO has NO Scriptural support whatsoever! So, I find it hard to believe a word you post, as you obviously believe a non-Scriptural, plainly-false doctrine.

 

As someone else pointed out, God is not the author of confusion. I do not see why God would want to write one text with the last 12 verses of Mark 16, and another text that omits it. That is confusing.

I don't consider my view blind. Many years ago I studied the subject and came to believe the KJB is the preserved text. Some of the reasons were scholastic, as the many thousands of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. From Wiki;

Oh, he's informed for sure. That doesn't prove he is correct. See, I don't think anybody can prove this subject, as the original autographs disappeared many centuries ago. So, when it comes down to it, you must believe by faith which text is the preserved text.

I like the KJB, I don't need another version. I am perfectly satisfied with it, and I believe it 100% trustworthy, unlike you fellas who think all versions are full of mistakes and errors. How do you trust something full of mistakes and errors?

I trust that "supposed" errors are just that.

I don't spend all my time attacking the MVs, I spend all my time attacking Calvinism. :thumbs:

 

I and Will Kinney both have debated with Rick (Logos) on other websites and have covered these subjects ad nauseum and there are issues that Rick outright refuses to address. But I don't have the same liberty on this forum to address issues the same way as were addressed on other forums.

I'm sending you the link to address the Rheims issue.

 

Because GOD IS GOD, and the Scriptures are His written word to us. he can edit it any way He jolly well chooses. However, all translations are God's perfect word handled by imperfect men. Can you PROVE that ending of Mark is GENUINE? Just cuz it SOUNDS good doesn't make it AUTHENTIC.

With no PROOF...only speculation, guesswork, and the opinions of others.

Different mss written by different men, same as the four "Gospels" of the NT are four differing narrations of the same events.

Have you tried checking out his info?

Faith? Or, GUESSWORK? Have you any PROOF?

Despite its PROVEN GOOFS?

Again, all Bible translations are God's perfect word handled by imperfect men. And a few human errors don't ruin the whole translation.

No one here denies the validity of the KJV. What we DO deny is that it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That doctrine is a BIG FAT LIE, invented by men, not suppoertd in the KJV itself.

They are what they are...BOOBOOS, some worse than others.

And SOME time trying to do the impossible, supporting a PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE. Kinda reminds me of ex-Confederate General Jubal Early, who, after the American Civil War, spent the remaining 39 years of his life campaigning for the "Lost Cause", which he established, portraying the Union forces which defeated the Rebs an an overwhelming evil force which had destroyed the noble South. He ignored the evils of slavery, and the many faults of the Southern govt. and financial structure.

 

influence of Rheims on making of the KJV

Do KJV-only advocates refuse to address the well-established fact of the KJV translators' use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

About 1 Peter 1:20, Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). Thus, the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims.

James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV.

Mark 4:12 turn (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) converted (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 6:31 wilderness (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) desert place (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 10:41 disdain (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) displeased (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 12:44 superfluity (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) abundance (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 13:22 deceive (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) seduce (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 14:20 platter (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) dish (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 1:80 wilderness (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) deserts (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 6:49 fall of that house (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) ruin of that house (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 9:1 heal (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) cure (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 10:14 be easier (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) be more tolerable (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:26 remnant (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)
other (Coverdale’s) rest (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 royalty (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) glory (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 clothed (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) arrayed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:29 ask (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) seek (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 14:28 perform (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) finish (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 15:14 dearth (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) famine (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:4 wild fig (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sycomore (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:21 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:22 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:23 vantage (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) usury (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:4 superfluity (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)
excess (Coverdale’s) abundance (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:5 garnished (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) adorned (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 besieged (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) compassed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 host (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Bishops’)
soldiers (Whittingham’s, Geneva) army (Rheims) armies (KJV)
Luke 21:34 overcome (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Bishops’)
overlade (Coverdale’s) oppressed (Geneva) overcharged (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 22:30 seats (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) thrones (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:19 insurrection (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sedition (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:32 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:39 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 24:8 remnant (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) other (Coverdale’s) rest (Rheims, KJV)

John 1:31 declared (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims) made manifest (KJV)
John 2:11 shewed (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims, KJV)
John 6:12 broken meat (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) fragments (Rheims, KJV)
John 9:28 rated (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Bishops’)
checked (Whittingham’s, Geneva) reviled (Rheims, KJV)
John 11:47 high priests (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) chief priests (Rheims, KJV)
John 12:6 that which was given (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) that were put in (Rheims)
what was put therein (KJV)
John 14:22 shew thyself (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifest thyself (Rheims, KJV)
John 17:6 declared (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims, KJV)
John 18:30 evil doer (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactor (Rheims, KJV)
John 18:35 high priests (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) chief priests (Rheims, KJV)
John 19:6 high priests (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) chief priests (Rheims, KJV)
John 19:24 coat (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) vesture (Rheims, KJV)

Acts 1:26 counted (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) numbered (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 2:7 wondered all (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) were all amazed (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 5:2 being of counsel (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)
knowing of it (Coverdale’s) being privy (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 6:2 meet (Tyndale’s to Geneva) good (Bishops’) reason (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 8:21 fellowship (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) lot (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 10:1 captain (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) centurion (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 10:22 captain (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) centurion (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 13:26 generation (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) stock (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 14:23 by election (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) [these 2 words omitted by Rheims, KJV]
Acts 17:16 given to worshipping of images (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great)
subject to worship idols (Whittingham’s) subject to idolatry (Geneva)
given to worshipping of idols (Bishops’) given to idolatry (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 17:19 Mars street (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva)
street of Mars (Bishops’) Areopagus (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 19:29 common hall (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Bishops’) open place (Coverdale’s)
common place (Geneva) theatre (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 19:35 ceased (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great) stilled (Coverdale’s) pacified (Bishops’)
stayed (Whittingham’s, Geneva) appeased (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 19:40 jeopardy (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) danger (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 23:27 soldiers (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s)
garrison (Geneva) army (Bishops’, Rheims, KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) clemency (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 25:23 chief men (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) principal men (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 27:39 haven (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) creek (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 28:15 waxed bold (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) took courage (Rheims, KJV)

 

In all fairness, any conclusion that one makes about this issue will be based largely on the work of others and a large part on faith. The simple fact is, we don't have the originals. Counting, weighting, historicity, authenticity are all the speculation and educated guesses of men. It all boils down to who you are willing to believe.

Logos 1560, I have read your book and, although we do not agree 100%, I certainly admire your hard work and thoroughness even as you post here on the Baptist Board.

 

Crickets...:smilewinkgrin:

 

Strawman...:sleeping_2:

 

That's the nicest name I've been called all day. Thanks!

 

Except...

We have the man-made, cultic, dishonest origin of the KJVO myth right here before us, as well as its total lacka Scriptural support. We all know BIBLICAL faith is substance and evidence(Hebrews 11:1) and KJVO has neither.

 

Though this wasn't directed at me, and I am certainly not KVJO, I am not sure I understand where you are going with this. The athiests - at least on this point - got it right. The KJV is indeed timeless, as exhibited by the fact that it still can be found everywhere. If you go to the book section of your local Dollar Tree, there is a good chance you will find paperback KJV's for $1.00.

You don't have to be a Christian to marvel at it.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

Thank you, somebody that actually gets it.

I realized many years ago that this is not an issue that anyone can prove. You have good arguments and good scholars on both sides.

So when it comes down to it, you either believe God preserved his word as he promised, or he did not. I believe God ALWAYS keeps his promises, and so my only duty was to find the preserved text. I do not believe God would hide his Word, as God wants all men to come to a knowledge of him, so I looked at the two dominant texts, the MVs that came from the CT, and the KJB that came from the RT. I believe the KJB from the RT is the preserved text.

Nobody can PROVE whether the KJB (or any other version) is the preserved text or not, it MUST in the end come down to faith.

I am glad to see there are others who are smart enough to figure this out.

 

Your entire argument is based on the similarities that the Rheims shares with other version prior to the KJV and conclude that that KJV is guilty by assocation.

First of all of those comparisons on based on Challoner's version of the Rheims which was translated AFTER the KJV. The only one written prior to 1611 that borrowed from the Latin Vulgate (NOT JUST JEROME'S) was Gregory Martin's. Just because Gregory Martin was smart enough to follow the same Waldensian type Latin Vulgate that Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, et al followed on the parts similar in the KJV, doesn't mean the KJV based their translations on the RHEIMS version. That is an absolutely ridiculous assumption.

Secondly, the Douay Rheims was BANNED in England, and any copies of it found were burned. It would be wholly absurd for the King and his government municipalities to maintain such a vehement view of the DR, and yet say nothing of the KJV translators having it in several different locations for 7 years. And I'm quite sure King James and all of the translators were well aware of William Fulke's refutation of the Rheims in 1589, and his criticisms against Gregory Martin.

Listen to the words of a Douay Rheims DEFENDER:

"In 1611 A.D., the Protestant King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version, was issued; but the Catholic Douay-Rheims was not allowed legal entry until the 18th century...Since the King James Version of 1611 A.D., it was as though Luther's "Bible" was the Bible of 1,100 years, and not the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version was permitted to stand without the competition and comparison with the Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims translation." http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

The Catholics themselves admitted that the KJV translators disparaged the Rheims every chance they got with constant comparisons of "our version" and "their version"

Then after 400 years, all of a sudden out of nowhere in 1969, Ward Allen produces a partial manuscript that nobody had ever seen which supposedly contained notes about John Bois statements about several NT verses based on the Rheims.

Now here's the kicker where this is complete NONSENSE:

JOHN BOIS WAS ON THE APOCRYPHA TRANSLATING COMMITTEE AT CAMBRIDGE AND WAS NOT AMONG THE TRANSLATORS UNTIL 1609.

The translators on the committee that translated the Gospels at OXFORD, Acts, and Revelation were: Thomas Ravis, George Abbot,John Peryn, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, Leonard Hutten , Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, and John Aglionby.

The translators on the committee that translated the Epistles at Westminster were: William Dakins, William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, , Michael Rabbet, and Thomas Sanderson .

LOGOS is engaged in REPEATED misrepresentations and partial sources from biased sources, and in this matter, the accusation that the KJV relied on the Douay Rheims defies history, it defies the facts, it defies common sense based on the attitude from not only the King but the translators themselves about the Rheims, it fails to recognize the RCC's attitude toward the KJV translators for their attacks on the Rheims, it ignores the fact that the Rheims was written as a COUNTER REFORMATION book, and it defies the fact that JOHN BOIS WAS NOT ON THE COMMITTEE THAT TRANSLATED THE OLD OR NEW TESTAMENT.