The real reason I am KJVO

Do you doubt what I said? They are found in the Gospel of John in modern versions.

 

Hi Logos1560

You quoted me........

And you responded with..........

Well, with your next statement, you seem to agree with me?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

So you do know, that it wasn’t his idea at all.
--------------------------------------------------
And then you give some quotes from those books.......

Was Michael Brown a mind reader. Who knows(especially after the fact), what was going on in someone’s mind.

In the same way, when you quote, Pastor Mincy, Williams, Allen, Robert Sargent, John Brown, Bradstreet, Steven Houck; (Were any of these men mind readers.)

This is like saying, “President Bush started the war to get there oil”.
(If these kinds of statements are being make, while he is still in office, how in the world, can anybody know fo sure what was going in King James’ mind.)

From what I have read, on this subject, John Rainolds needed the King’s support, because the vast majority of the religious leaders of that time, were firmly against, another Bible being translated.

But I have never said, that I use the KJV, because trusted in the King’s character.
(Just that attacks upon his character, are really underhanded attacks upon the KJV.)

 

You did not find the evidence in the Gospel of John in modern versions. Look at John 5:31 and 8:14.

 

I wonder aloud if we will ever get to a place where we realize God changes people's lives and not the Bible. The Bible is merely a tool in the hands of an Almighty God through the influence of the Holy Spirit and example of Jesus Christ.

 

Hello annsni

You started off, with several of my statements to Martin Luther, that I said in response to his statements(and his questions were not included here).......

and

and

and

Then you said..........

Ann, I did not choose the words, "corrupt text", as you well know.

And I agree, “God is God and He has preserved His Word to us. Praise Him!!”

And I am glad to hear, that you believe your ESV, to be 100% true.

 

what annsni said :)

please...:thumbs:

 

Hello again Logos1560

You quoted me..........

Then you said.......

And you are absolutely correct.

But what you don’t realize, is that I made this statement, to a baby Christian that was just starting out, in the faith.

When I was a baby Christian, I started out with a dictionary, and later I discovered the Strongs concordance.

With a good Greek and Hebrew dictionary, a Christian that is motivated, can dig as deeply, as ANYBODY.

 

Hi rbell

You quoted me........

Then you said........

Well, as I said to someone else, who are you to decide what is “significant”.
We are talking about the Bible here.

Sure, if I were in prison and only had access to an NIV, or RSV, etc, than I would study them.
But I do have access to a KJV, and so therefore I can avoid the “insignificant doctrinal differences”, that can be found, in those other versions.

 

Hello again Martin Luther

And let me add my welcome

You quoted me..........

Then you said........

Here is my favorite.....

Here Peter(under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), tells us that if we were to hear God’s voice from heaven speaking to us, that the words found in the Bible, are to be considered more accurate.

Yes God’s Word has to be 100% accurate: Because we are told to judge EVERYTHING else by it.
--------------------------------------------------
You can find some other passages, that I given to others here, in other threads.

 

Hello rbell

First you quoted me..........

Then you said.......

Rbell, I was not doing that here.

In my interacting with other Christians, I have learned that “some Christians”, with a knowledge of the original languages, are saying, that when they do a deep study of John 1:1, that “they find”, that the original Greek in this verse, in some small way, allows for the interpretation of this verse, to say the words, “a God”.

Just as Ann said, that some Christians who know Hebrew, have studied Isa.7:14, and found that(in their opinion), it doesn’t have to say “virgin”.

I was not saying that I agree with their findings, but just that this is what they are saying.
--------------------------------------------------
If there are Greek or Hebrew experts here, then they might be able to shed more light on this whole issue.

Regardless of what experts find out, I will continue to believe God's Word and the Deity of Christ.
As for these kinds of questions, I am still learning.

 

Hi annsni

You quoted me.......

Then you said..........

No matter how you put it, I am not going to call anybody stupid.
I am sorry, if that offended you.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you quoted me again........

Then you said.......

Oh, I fully agree with you.
But I do pay attention, to what people who are smarter than I, have to say.

And like I told rebel, some people who study Greek, say that it could be.
But I do disagree with them.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me(about 1John 5:7).......

And you said........

Well, that is an interesting statement.
I and ready and willing to jump into the issue of 1John 5:7, but that would derail this thread.

Maybe later.

 

Read them again and figure out.

 

They all say the same thing. Seriously, you are going to decry the MV as "liberal" or something like that over the difference in "testimony" and "witness" and "record"?

Really?

Seems like more hair splitting. They all mean the same thing...

 

You did not get the point.

Read CAREFULLY:

Jesus' testimony is true and NOT true.

Therefore these modern versions show that Christ contradicted Himself on these passages.

 

I don't see any significant translation (other than the NWT which ISN'T a MV) using "a god." The Greek isn't explicit but should be rendered as most translations do.

The NWT goes against accepted Greek rules at many points and shouldn't be trusted. Every other acceptable MV follows the rules well. The NET Bible does a great job explaining the issues in a translator's note attached to the verse:

Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

The word used doesn't have to be translated "virgin" ('almah) but can mean a girl of youth. Of course in Jewish culture (which the verse emenates from) a young, Jewish girl was expected to be a virgin.

 

Misinformation is the only tool of those who hate God's word in its modern translations.

People here don't hate the KJVs as has been shown over and over and over again, stilllearning. What people here hate is the KJVO position we believe to be a false teaching that questions God's ability and His wisdom in preserving His word in more than one English Bible translation.

There's a huge difference between hating the KJVs and hating what we believe is a false teaching about the KJVs. But in your confusion it's understandable you wouldn't see the difference. As a matter of fact, some of the very people you falsely accuse of hating the KJVs actually use one of the KJVs as their Bible translation of choice. Personally, it's one of the three translations I use most frequently.