-
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!
Non-KJBO lies
- Thread starter RaptureReady
- Start date
quote:
Originally posted by C4K:
So what do Spanish speakers, French speakers. German speakers do? Must they learn English? All of those languages are different from English. How do we know which language to trust?!?
Askjo: They have accurate translations in their mother tongue. Romans 16:26
Three observations leading to serious questions (which any KJVO advocate should be able to answer or admit that there is a problem in their claim in this regard):
(1) Coptic-speaking Christians in Egypt even to this day use only the Coptic version. That version has been of the Alexandrian type of text ever since the second century, and remains so today. Do the Egyptian Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(2) Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitto have a NT canon that excludes 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn, Jude. Is their NT complete for them? Also, while the Gospels in the Syriac version are more strongly Byzantine, in the Acts and Epistles, “the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types.... about 30-40% of the whole” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism). With a truncated canon and a 40% non-Byzantine text in their Acts and Epistles, do today’s Syriac-speaking Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(3) The Japanese people, since the introduction of Christianity, continually have had a translation in their mother tongue that was based exclusively on the Alexandrian type of text. They have never had a translation based on a TR or Byzantine type of text. Do today’s Japanese people have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
Originally posted by C4K:
So what do Spanish speakers, French speakers. German speakers do? Must they learn English? All of those languages are different from English. How do we know which language to trust?!?
Askjo: They have accurate translations in their mother tongue. Romans 16:26
Three observations leading to serious questions (which any KJVO advocate should be able to answer or admit that there is a problem in their claim in this regard):
(1) Coptic-speaking Christians in Egypt even to this day use only the Coptic version. That version has been of the Alexandrian type of text ever since the second century, and remains so today. Do the Egyptian Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(2) Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitto have a NT canon that excludes 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn, Jude. Is their NT complete for them? Also, while the Gospels in the Syriac version are more strongly Byzantine, in the Acts and Epistles, “the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types.... about 30-40% of the whole” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism). With a truncated canon and a 40% non-Byzantine text in their Acts and Epistles, do today’s Syriac-speaking Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(3) The Japanese people, since the introduction of Christianity, continually have had a translation in their mother tongue that was based exclusively on the Alexandrian type of text. They have never had a translation based on a TR or Byzantine type of text. Do today’s Japanese people have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
With all the allegations made by KJVO's that MV's seek to omit the name of our Saviour, delete references to His blood, etc.- I thought a quick software search comparing the KJV to one of the MV's might be interesting. Since the NIV seems to be the object of much of the KJVO venom, I chose to use it as the MV representative. Here's what I found:
The word "Jesus" appears in the KJV 942 times. The word "Jesus" appears in the NIV 1,281 times.
The word "Christ" appears in the KJV 532 times. The word "Christ" appears in the NIV 536 times.
The word "blood" appears in the KJV 375 times. The word "blood" appears in the NIV 395 times.
(Of course, "blood" may be used in other contexts.)
What does any of this prove?: nothing! In the logic of KJVOism though, one must wonder exactly why the translators of the KJV chose to use a personal pronoun ("He") in place of our Lord and Saviour's name in so many places!
The word "Jesus" appears in the KJV 942 times. The word "Jesus" appears in the NIV 1,281 times.
The word "Christ" appears in the KJV 532 times. The word "Christ" appears in the NIV 536 times.
The word "blood" appears in the KJV 375 times. The word "blood" appears in the NIV 395 times.
(Of course, "blood" may be used in other contexts.)
What does any of this prove?: nothing! In the logic of KJVOism though, one must wonder exactly why the translators of the KJV chose to use a personal pronoun ("He") in place of our Lord and Saviour's name in so many places!
RaptureReady
New Member
By virtue of what?</font>[/QUOTE]Because if one is wrong, the hole thing is wrong. You either accept the italic words as scripture or you don't. I do.
[ August 11, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: RaptureReady ]
RaptureReady
New Member
How do you know? The KJV translators to whom you ascribe the office of inspired writers specifically put some of the notes in because they might be scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Because some go against scripture. It's man's opinion.
By virtue of what?</font>[/QUOTE]Because if one is wrong, the hole thing is wrong. You either accept the italic words as scripture or you don't. I do. </font>[/QUOTE]Your premise is completely wrong and fails on the rules of logic.
Using the "logic" you endorse, any sentence containing the word "ain't" would be false... because if one thing is wrong then obviously the whole thing is wrong.
It is equivalent to saying anything that isn't worded perfectly to the exclusion of all other wording is by default "wrong".
A child can "perfectly" report the details of a new toy... but I am under no delusions that their words are the "perfect" way to report the details of the toy. Writings or words are "perfect" in as much as they accurately transmit the intended message.
In any event, you didn't answer my question but rather tried to change the subject.
The KJV translators were biblically unqualified to write scripture. This is a statement of fact that you have yet to deal with. While you are at it, maybe you can go back to Hank's link to proof that the KJV translators were involved in persecuting Bible believing Christians.
How do you know? The KJV translators to whom you ascribe the office of inspired writers specifically put some of the notes in because they might be scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Because some go against scripture. It's man's opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]Not if they are scripture.
BTW, the textual choices for these questionable passages were the choices of men... the KJV translators. Proof has been posted that demonstrates that they were not qualifed to receive inspiration, were not theologically sound, and persecuted true believers.
Moreover, the idea that "some go against scripture" is also a "man's opinion"- yours.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
What about David(pre-meditated murderer),Moses(murder),and others? Were they disqualified to receive inspiration??? If not,why not?
You call me "idiot."
If they are updated to contemporary language, I checked many verses in modern versions and found out about these verses that I looked for, and noticed these verses that are missed, added or nonsense.
Untrue! I researched them and found out about them. Original language texts? Only 45 MSS (1% MSS supporting MVs). You quoted, "They haven't omitted or added anything." Incorrect! I have lists of MSS containing any verses in the Bible. They did omitted or added too many times.
MVs are update to the WH text, not the KJV. The NKJV is the update to the MT and NU text - not the KJV.
What's wrong with Will Kinney? He provided you his many excellent answers.
Well, you call me idiot. I would say, "It is me." Am I a thing? Look up a dictionary. What does it say about "it"? I am not an idiot.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
I'm saying since WHEN did being a good,godly person with "good words" and "fair speeches" become a bullet proof vest??!!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
"Victory" appears 38 times in the
Holman Chrsitian Standard BIble (HCSB).
"Victory" appear 12 times in
the KJB1769. Obviously HCSB is more concerned
with Victory than the KJB!
Holman Chrsitian Standard BIble (HCSB).
"Victory" appear 12 times in
the KJB1769. Obviously HCSB is more concerned
with Victory than the KJB!
Me - misunderstand? That is not obvious. Let me say something on the NIV. Look at it reflecting "morning star."
NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
WHO is morning star?
NIV Rev. 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Who is morning star?
NIV contradicts with 2 verses reflecting its interrogation: WHO is morning star?:
The Satan (Isa. 14:12) is as morning star as Jesus (Rev. 22:16).
Accusation without evidence? I already have some evidences about these men.
Askjo said "Me - misunderstand? That is not obvious"
Maybe not to you.
Askjo said "NIV Isaiah 14:12 ... WHO is morning star?"
A Babylonian king, represented by the planet Venus.
Askjo said "NIV Rev. 22:16 ... Who is morning star?"
Do you mean who is "the bright Morning Star"? Jesus.
Askjo said "NIV contradicts with 2 verses reflecting its interrogation: WHO is morning star?"
No, no contradiction. Who said the title must be exclusive? For example, who is the "son of man"?
Askjo said "The Satan (Isa. 14:12) is as morning star as Jesus (Rev. 22:16)."
Why is it that only KJV-only people are confused about this?
Askjo said "Accusation without evidence? I already have some evidences about these men."
I haven't seen any, I may have missed it. Please feel free to post it again.
Maybe not to you.
Askjo said "NIV Isaiah 14:12 ... WHO is morning star?"
A Babylonian king, represented by the planet Venus.
Askjo said "NIV Rev. 22:16 ... Who is morning star?"
Do you mean who is "the bright Morning Star"? Jesus.
Askjo said "NIV contradicts with 2 verses reflecting its interrogation: WHO is morning star?"
No, no contradiction. Who said the title must be exclusive? For example, who is the "son of man"?
Askjo said "The Satan (Isa. 14:12) is as morning star as Jesus (Rev. 22:16)."
Why is it that only KJV-only people are confused about this?
Askjo said "Accusation without evidence? I already have some evidences about these men."
I haven't seen any, I may have missed it. Please feel free to post it again.