The real reason I am KJVO

M't:8:29: And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? KJV

M’t:8:29: And behold they cried out, saying. What do we have to do with you Son of God?. Have you come here to torment us before the time. NASB

Seems the demons withheld some important information here. Jesus is left out!, well it only removes Jesus identity as the Son of God, effecting his relation to God as his son, and his deity, but no big deal. All it does is just a little damage to the doctrine of the person of Christ.

 

Salamander: What really gets me is that while we stand on the KJB and know what the mind of the Spirit is, men and their societies are constantly adjusting the word of God to fit their understanding expecting everyone else to fall, yes FALL!, in line with their reasoing.

Actually, it's called KEEPING UP WITH THE LANGUAGE. At one time the KJV was the most-modern English version around, but that day was 400 years ago!

All the while Giod expects men, ALL men, to get in line with His reasoning.

And the KJVO doctrine is NOT in His reasoning! it's not even hinted at whatsoever in Scripture, not even in the KJV itself.

God even abases himself to an estate of lower degree to come where man is at and offers to reason together with man. Isaiah 1:18.

So, why do you continue to believe an obviously-false doctrine about His word in English?

Still men are persistently making unsubstanciated works of their hands as to perfect the word of God to any reader while that has already been accomplished by the Spirit of God.

We have pointed out several obvious goofs in the KJV, in response to those misguided individuals who tryta tell us it's perfect. The KJV, and every other translation is the perfect worda God translated by imperfect men.

Proof? The KJB ends up the main subject of EVERY topic in this and all other forums when the Bible is discussed.

That's because of the false KJVO doctrine introduced into the body of Christian doctrines by some misguided individuals. We Christians have a D-U-T-Y to fight any and all false religious doctrines, & KJVO is as false as any of'em.


The only exception is when MV proponents intentionally start topics determined to avoid mention of the KJB. But when it does come to mention, they ridicule it's advocates and begin to attack them and the KJB. They attemtp to jusitfy their attacks by saying that KJVO's do the same: reminds me of secualr reason amongst a bunch of muggers, robbers, and thieves!

Wanna shut'em all up? it's simple-just provide some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO! (Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!)

Of course this is too simplistic in logic for them to receive! Now the intellectuals will gnash and rip apart everything I just related....... Hmmm.

Well, i aint no intellectual, but I didn't gotta be to rip yer stuff to shreds. All I hadta do was stick to the TRUTH.

Yall boys keep trying to perfect that which is already PERFECT and we'll keep standing on the KJB!

Sorry, Sal, that hippo won't fly. The KJV aint perfect; we've already PROVEN that! We've PROVEN KJVO was derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book. And what was your "defense" Opinion, conjecture, & guesswork!

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT JUSTIFY BELIEVING AN ASCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE ABOUT GOD'S WORD!

 

Context, context, CONTEXT! To whom else could they possibly have been speaking but JESUS?

 

Interesting that the inserted term (in the KJV) occurs only in the TR and several manuscripts from the 9 through 12 centuries and not in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel.

As well the term "to repentance" doesn't even appear in the Vulgate, or Latin version, of the NT.

The KJV seems to be the only text that includes "to repentance" here. Of course this is probably an interprolation into the Textus Receptus based on the few texts Erasmus had at his disposal. The two words simply aren't in the earliest manuscripts which lends creedance to their dismissal in the reconstructed texts.

To add "to repentance" seems a bit out of place here, particularly in this pericope where the emphasis is on the universal nature of Christ's revelation to mankind which is not predicated on societal status. The emphasis in Matthew is on Christ's mission to all sinners and rarely he includes repentance as a product of Christ's mission (I can think of two instances and one has to do with baptism) because it was understood that it was necessarily part of conversion. :)

This is one place and the supposed "doctrinal error" isn't there. Obviously in the NASB there is clear teaching that sinners are called to repentance elsewhere. This particular phrase eis metanoian is not common in Matthew or Mark but definitely in Luke.

 

M't:18:2: And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, KJV

M’t:18:2: And he called a child to himself and set him before them. NASB

The NIV didn’t even let him set down, and made him stand there, otherwise it reads like the NASB


Now its time to ask the other side, why do these translations leave out the name of Jesus at every convince. Does this make the Bible clearer?, or does it just blind side the reader. And I don’t think it can be said “well it is assumed”, I don't remember assuming Jesus when I found him.

 

Again the earliest manuscripts don't have the word Ieosu (Jesus.) Only the documents used in the formation of the Textus Receptus (and they aren't consistent) have it. If anything the word is another interpolation by Scribes in the transmission for a needless qualification.

Actually the construction in Greek is bulky when adding Jesus. Usually in Matthew having Jesus preceeding the title "Son of God" doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts and it isn't consistent in the TR. It isn't Matthew's style to add the qualifier because the term uie tou Theou is qualified often by Christ Himself when speaking. The term is implied in the text and is not used by Matthew.

Those demons! Curses! ;)

Jesus isn't left out. In the Greek construction He's right there since the phrase used would have been readily identified with Him by the readers and hearers in the day of Matthew. The actual phrase, as used by Matthew, is consistent without Jesus in his Gospel. :)

The NASB doesn't err here, it is the proper reading the Greek text.

 

This is a decision on the part of the translators. The key word here is mesw and can be best understood. You're cherry picking your choice btw. This isn't a doctrinal problem. I asked for doctrinal problems, this is a translation decision from the Greek.

Again its an interpretative thing, how the translators chose to relate the construction. Of course the Gospel of Matthew isn't consistent in the KJV. Notice the six places where this word occurs in Matthew and how the KJV translates it:

10:16--->midst...Gr. mesw
13:25--->among...Gr. meson
13:49--->among...Gr. mesw
14:6---->before them...Gr. mesw
18:2---->midst...Gr. mesw
18:20--->midst...Gr. mesw

How can you expect the MVs to be consistent when the KJV itself isn't consistent in the translation of this word?

I don't understand this? Jesus is in the above verse. It is unnecessary to repeat it since the "he" is a clear referent to Christ in the previous verse. The participle used here clearly refers to Christ and is used by the TR and other manuscipts.

 

No I am not suprised! your early manuscripts, do not have Jesus in them. Origen, and his Alexandrian scholars removed as much as they could, without making it to ovious.

They were responsible! for the two Alexandrian text, used for the MV's.

 

KJVo and anti-intellectualism walk hand in hand......

 

I said in the first place I would not post all of these examples, believe me it only gets worse from here. Verses left out, verses added, more deletions of words like Jesus, Holy Spirit, and God.

I used to point out, well it said it in the first verse also; that is until I really noticed just how much was left out.

But I have been all through this before, and it serves no purpose, only those who want to see, see. Those who don't, well; its impossible to make them see.

 

Well,while they were butchering the bible,they removed the verses that justify being KJVO AND that verse that says the KAY JAY BEE is the only TRUE English bible...

 

Um no and no.

Here's the point which you are avoiding...the texts don't need to repeat the name of Jesus because He's already there in the verbs and participles. Maybe you don't know Greek, which is cool, but in Greek you don't need to repeat a name for clarification, as English does for clarification, because it is naturally carried over in the way the verb/particple presents itself.

Your argument is flawed because Matthew's style, similar to other Gospels and New Testament writings, follows the koinia style of concision by looping in words with verbs and participles.

If you're going to make an accusation about the text you might want to brush up on the Greek of it all.

Also there is no case for a corruption of the earliest texts...particularly by these individuals. Origen, while having some to do with early Christianity wasn't a scribe who transmitted texts. Particularly because Origen's life dates are different than the dating of most of the Alexandrian text. Your suggestion that he was out to change things is silly and unfounded. The Alexandrian text is a very reliable text and, when coupled with other texts, is a terrific basis for the reconstructed text of the New Testament.

I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show me an earlier manuscript that supports your readings rather than just make a negative assertion about someone without any basis. But that seems to be the argumentation technique you've developed.

Finally you might want to check out your history. While the Alexandrian text does help reconstruct a textual basis its reliability is further atested to by the numerous Papryi which support its textual basis.

What would concern me the most is how the TR changes things to create confusion. Erasmus did what he could, but he's got a pretty shabby text.

 

If you want an incomplete case that's fine with me. I'd suggest if we look at the manuscript evidence and read the actual Greek we'll continually find that the older evidences deny the TR a good foundation for translation. Other than that you end up arguing over how different translators render different words which is like comparing how red declicious apples and rome apples. Its a preference thing.

English is a really poor language.

I wouldn't say left out. Most of these differences are translatory decisions. The translators of the KJV had a different kind of English and a different objective than those of the NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.

This is highly dubious and quite ridiculous. "If you want to believe, you'll believe but if you research it and come to a different conclusion you're wrong." One of difficult things is how the KJVO pushes their position and claims anti-intellectualism as soon as they are confronted with an actual argument. That is sad because it denies truth to find its way.

I've done the work and research, I don't buy the KJVO position...if for no other reason than it can't cross borders. There isn't a KJVO argument in Polish.

 

anti-intellectualism: Well I would guess that's just what Paul, is saying right here. If anti-intellectualism puts me in this group, for Christs sake I am willing to become more of a big dummy.


1Co:1:26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


See Ya -- Shalom

 

See that is an example right there. Deal with the issues I've raised and don't pass them off. Get into the text man! Dig deep and let' talk about why this is here and that's not here.

Don't walk away and give us the rhetorical bird. Come on that's not awfully fruitful.

One thing I've noticed in my conversations with KJVO proponents is you're all quick to castigate and question character but can't swing it in a long conversation.

In another thread I was called a heretic and had my personal character impugned by some people. When I answered them they have yet to respond. If you desire to have your position seriously considered you might want to show some respect and the ability to converse. Otherwise its just a cult.

 

Hello again 4His_glory

You asked...........

We know that it wasn’t broken, was because the Bibles translated during that time, were effective in changing people’s lives.
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked..........

You and I.
What I mean is, it is my opinion, that the system is broken. That is what this entire thread is all about.
I am giving all of you, the reasons why I think, the system is broken.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me..........

And then you said..........

No, I didn’t say that. You have my quote: ”A few respected scholars”.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said..........

You got it.

But all of us, must base our opinions on something.
I am basing my opinions up, the Bibles warnings about deceivers in the last days.
And what I have learned about BB Warfield and others.



See you later

 

Good stuff there annsni!