Why are so many post "KJVO"?

Because he cannot.

 

Can't you find more details from the Internet concerning Gnostics bibles? I can, but no thank you!

 

The Nag Hammadi Library, those comprise the Gnostic books. Gnostic heresies were removed from the mainstream after the Church became official in the 4th century under Constantine. Read up on the numerical councils that met throughout that century after the conversion of Constantine; Nicea , Carthage, Hippo etc etc. The first council of Nicea was called specifically to settle things like that.

Having re-read the majority of the Bible in a modern version, I dont even begin to see where your getting this gnostic junk at? Who is your KJVO source?

 

Most KJVO people never even read a so called "MV" With people like Gail Riplinger putting fear into people to even open an NIV, it is no wonder.
Of course she and others must keep people from reading newer translations of God's Word lest they realize the truth contained in them and leave their KJVO advocacy.

 

This thread, the Bible Versions and Translation Thread must be sick and tired to display so many posts mostly about KJV and MV issues for many years.

MV's are nothing but the translations based on the Roman Catholic or Orthodox which persecuted the Words of God thru the history, which include many modifications apparently.

If you have not discerned them yet, you may need some more decades to study on it.

When I read thru the Greek NT and Hebrew OT, I realize the issue is not there.

There are the issues between TR and Majority Texts, not between TR and Minority texts ( Alexandrian Texts), and Greek Texts and Aramaic as a whole, and Hebrew Masoretic Texts themselves like Ben Chayyim and Ben Asher and Talgum.

There are problems with KJV, let alone the language update problem. There are more problem in OT than in NT.
In NT KJV didn't distinguish between Gehenna and Hades, in OT it didn't distinguish between Elohim and Malack, and sometimes it deviated from the principle of Word to Word translation. But the criticism against KJV here is all the time from the view of MV's. MV's are ultimately rooted in Catholic, Idol worshippers.

I know you are not such people that are capable to understand those issues, and therefore you just repeat the same debate for many years, again and again, yet without realizing the MV's are ultimately based on Vatican Texts plus a little Orthodox kindling paper Aleph.

At the end this thread looks like a place to pass time or to waste time, repeating the same grade.

 

Define "Gnostic"- we asked before and never got an answer.

Once you do that, then give us some specific examples of "Gnostic" Bibles- not the same old "Well so and so sez" or a cut and paste job, but some of your own personal research that is verifiable.

Until then you have no credibility.

 

I am sure that some folks in Heaven are having a laugh -as well as some in Hell screaming "NO"- over you calling the Bibles of their day "kindling paper".

 

If youn have compared Aleph with other Greek texts, you can find it is not the quality of Bible. It contains so many errors. It proves itself is the writing exercise book for the Bible.

Majority texts have been preserved by many believers throughout Europe. But in case of Vaticanus B, it is apparent that the Roman Church organization which persecuted Believers and prohibited the Bible as in 1229.

If you do not recognize such difference, you are quite far away from discussing about the Bible texts and translations.

 

Hello, Eliyahu. I just noticed you are back after taking a whole year off.

 

You are the one making the allegation, therefore it is up to you provide the evidence to prove it.

 

I've been following this debate. Frankly, it has proved a little difficult at times because Eliyahu does not always communicate clearly (see above short quote for a few examples).

How can someone who seems to be familiar with minute details of English Bible texts himself have such poor English writing skills? Is English his second language (as a French Canadian) or something? I found no clues in his profile data.

Language Cop, where are you?

 

The Catholic versions are not the same as the NIV, NASB, ESV and such. The official Catholic Bibles sanctioned are the NAB (New American Bible), Latin Vulgate of course, NRSV Catholic Edition, Douey Rhiems. These are all translated to conform to the Latin and do read somewhat differently that Protestant modern translations.

 

(attack on Bibles deleted)
The ultimate root of the underlying texts are B, A, Aleph, eventually the Alexandrian texts.

 

Did I miss something from these other 6 citations that is not found in the D-R?

I did cite the NKJV, HCSB, and LIT being as they are the most 'Baptist' based of these versions, unlike the KJVs, MCB, and D-R, you understand.

Ed

 

You have that one backwards and A=Aleph. Also all but a handful of pre-4th century mss are Alexandrian but not all are from Alexandria. Its a text type and a location.

 

How 'bout this, Askjo?

Askjo, this is what Gnostics believed. Can you show us one single modern Bible translation that teaches us "the material world was created as evil and corrupted" or that "Jesus was a spirit" and not actual flesh? If not then your allegations of "Gnostic Bibles" are totally without merit. We'll be waiting for you to show us some "Gnostic Bibles," Askjo.

 

I was talking about A meaning Alexandrinus which dates back to fifth century

Aleph means Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in 19 century but dates back to 4th century.

So, A is not Aleph.

Aleph may reflect Greek Orthodox.

This aleph contains many spelling mistakes etc.

 

I have made some short study on Sinaiticus ( Aleph) only for Matthew 1-13.

Bible Sinaiticus Errors or Variances


Matthew 1- 13:

1. Matt 6:15 their tresspasses
Majority Texts: παραπτωματα αυτων
VaticanusB : παραπτωματα αυτων
Alelph Sinaiticus : Omitted

Paraptomata auton is omitted in Aleph, while all the other manuscripts including B have it.

2. MT 6:25 : what ye shall drink

Majority Texts : τιπιητε
Vaticanus B : τιπιητε
Aleph : Omitted

Ti piete – what to drink, omitted while all the other mss contain it, Vaticanus B contain it.

3. 6:28 How they grow
Majority Texts : αυξανει
Vaticanus B : αυξανουσιν
Aleph : ου ξενουσιν

How they grow ( majority and B), how they are not strange?( Aleph)

4. 9:5 thy sins are forgiven
Μajority : αφεωνται Perfect Passive
Β ¨αφιενται Present Passive
Α: αφιονται – incorrect grammar


5. 13:7 choke, suffocate

Majority : απεπνιξαν
Β : Απεπνιξαν
Aleph : Απνιξαν

There is no word like Aleph, while all the others say choke

6 12:10 to heal
Majority : θεραπευειν – Present Active Infinitive
Β: θεραπευειν
Αleph : θεραπευσαι – Aorist Active Infinitive

No reason to have Aorist there. Aleph disagrees with B again.

7: 13:25 sowed
Majority : εσπειρε – Aorist Infinitive
Β¨επεσπειρεν – Aorist Infinitive
Αleph : ¨επεσπαρακεν
Spelling Mistake in Aleph

8: 13: 44 in the field
Majority : εντωαγρω
Β: εν τω αγρω
Αleph : Omitted

9: 13:55 Jose – Yose

Majority : Ιωσης ( Yoses)
Β: Ιωσηφ ( Yoseph)
Αleph : Ιωαννης ( Yohannes)
Aleph contradicts itself in Matt 27:56 as it states Yoseph (Ιωσηφ).

You can see Aleph often differs not only from Majority manuscripts but also from B, and sometimes the words do not make sense at all.