Why are so many post "KJVO"?

The footnote is NOT in the text. It is a note that explains something on the page. Bible Gateway.com shows:

Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

AGAIN -- Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase?

AGAIN -- Manuscripts, that modern versions followed, contained this phrase. Why did the modern version omit this phrase? Who told you to remove the people’s speaking?

 

You have to prove that the site is full of deception as you said this:


Yep - went through the first few Bible verses with my own Bibles and I see that, once again, a KJVO site is full of deception and lies.

 

Because there is cause to doubt that particular part due to conflicting sources. These "modern versions" are at least attempting to be honest with the reader instead of putting it in and not netioning the fact that not all of the witnesses agree. You know, how the KJV USED to do, before they removed all the footnotes?

 

Because cults tend to spread like cancer.

 

A better question would be "Why did the KJVs add this phrase?" Since the texts underlying modern translations are older and probably more accurate, it stands to reason the phrase was added in later manuscripts. Most supposed omissions in modern translations are not omissions at all. The later texts had much more time for errors, or "corruption," to be added.

 

The 1611 KJV had footnotes also. And the translators considered them to be God's Word according to their Preface. What's the difference?

Oh, yes- I understand now- MV footnotes are the work of GNOSTICS...

 

This whole thread seems to have......AGAIN......turned into a bashing of the KJV Bible, not the KJVO position. Happens almost every time. Maybe some of you need to step away and look at the criticism you CLAIM is for the KJVO crowd, and notice how most of your posts are against the KJV Bible instead.

 

They take verses that mean the same thing, and attempt to "prove" there are differences.

If you wanna play by those rules, then remember there are differences in the editions of the KJV. One of them has "of God," the other doesn't. So which KJV is wrong?

Fortunately, I don't play by those silly rules, so things are fine here. :saint:

 

Huh?

Most of what I'm reading here involves slamming a site that bashes the NIV. Please show where someone has bashed the KJV...quote it, if you don't mind.

 

I suppose you are speaking to me also, since I made the last post before yours. What I posted was not against the KJV, but rather a FACT about the KJV and the KJV translator's opinions of footnotes.

Sigh... I guess one man's truth is another man's bashing- whatever.

 

Did you happen to notice that any "bashing" on this thread originated with a "bashing of all 'non-KJV' Bibles" perchance?

You might consider checking posts # 19 & 22 for starters, to see where any "bashing" originated. So who started the bashing, and what is now being responded to, in this. Uh- KJVO.

In addition, another poster suggested that those of us on this thread were lacking in ability to comprehend the discussion, in post # 26. I do not see that one person has "bashed" the KJV, thus far, on this thread, and I have read every post.

Not 'elevating' the KJV above any and all other versions, to some "special status" such as two posters on this thread have seemed to do, one of whom has claimed NOT to be KJVO, and the second who has stated that he does not claim 'inspiration' for the KJV, whatever any of this may actually mean, does not equal "bashing" the KJV.

Although I do wonder why, in virtually every instance I have seen that I can recall, whenever there is some possibility of more than one position, the above said posters, as do you, somehow always seem to wind up ONLY on the 'side' of the KJV, be the issue that of text or even the rendering of a word or phrase.

BTW, what Baptist decided that any "non-Baptist" translation such as the KJV, NIV, or NASB, should be a "better" translation, than that of a couple of the well-known and most definitely the most "Baptistic" of translations, namely the NKJV and HCSB?

Ed

 

The KJV does not have footnotes, but it has marginal notes. The KJV's notes did not say anything about the MANUSCRIPTS such as "later MSS added" or "earliest MSS omitted."

 

Does it really make a difference as to which 'printing convention' is followed as to the location of the notes, when they are referencing a verse?

BTW, I believe the KJV translator notes are properly referred to as "'side' notes" rather than marginal notes.

Ed

 

It doesn't?

How about this note from Luke XVII v36?

'This 36 verse is wanton in most of the Greek copies'

Or this note next to Matthew I v11

'Some read Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias'

Or this note from Luke X v22

'Many ancient copies adde these words, and turning to his Disciples he said'

BTW, saw several more cases while just flipping through it, but didn't take the time to type them out.

Look at your copy of the KJV1611 Askjo and see for yourself.

 

Ah, you beat me to it.

I can second the accuracy of those verses margin notes. Seen them myself.

 

Hmmm!

One more perfectly good "lead balloon" shot down, I see.

Ed

 

These are valid.

 

Would you like to rethink this statement in light of the above evidence?

 

Which KJV? Oxford or Cambridge?