Featured Pro-KJV but not a KJO

Thank you for your kind reply.

There are a number of reasons. One primary reason is that there is no good manuscript evidence. The main manuscript evidence are 99% of 1 John manuscripts which do not have those words. Of the 1% there are nothing before the 14th century in the Greek. Now in the old Latin there are no two manuscripts which agree, that is a problem, no agreement.

 

Actually, the Bible Presbyterian movement in Singapore is KJVO, though some would classify them as TR Only. Here is their school: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

 

The Word was not God?

 

Har har. Well, they should be.

 

God never changes in His nature and His attributes, but the Second person did "change" by assuming humanity and human nature for now on forever!

 

Jesus is still in the same relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit!

 

Would you be then a KJVP?

 

Once they get rid of that silly Infant Baptism!

 

I would not reject that label, but would have to qualify it with "Byzantine Priority." And I could not be KJVP in any other language than English.

Tis is precisely where the KJVO movement fails. They have no prescription for a "KJV" in other languages. Ruckman thought that the Bungoyaku, Japanese Classical Bible was the "KJV of Japan." But it's NT was from Nestle's Greek text. Or perhaps the Motoyaku, "Original Translation." Either way, he was ignorant--about that and so much else.

 

Is there not a Japanese translation based off the Nas?

 

Yes, but not off the KJV.

 

I rely on the KJ V as a resource to the text used for its translation via Strong's. The only other version I use is the ESV.

 

was that Nas based one good?

 

The esv does deem to be the default version for many baptists today!

 

Pretty good (though wooden like the NASB), except for the Greek text used (Nestle's).

 

One can still get a decent translation off even that text source though....

 

Translation theory and textual criticism are two different disciplines. A pet peeve of mine is that they are often crammed together for no reason.

 

No. The Word was both prior to the incarnation. John 1:1-3. ". . . with the God" and ". . . was God."