I Am KJVP!

[SteveB]

Are you claiming perfection for all these translations?

Depends entirely on your own definition of perfection.

I think the language is close enough that there's no mistranslation in them.

I'm still waiting for the guy who said the bible is untrustworthy to actually respond.

I think he realized that he was wrong, but is unwilling to recognize the simplicity of the gospel and what biblical repentance is.

 

[robycop3]

The perfect Bible version is the one that's accurate & perfect for its reader.

Given the fact that many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek words have multiple meanings in English, & context often does not point out the best meaning for a particular usage, I use a variety of translations to obtain the best overview of Scripture & to give the Holy Spirit more to work with in my mind as He teaches me.

Remember, Sportzz Fanzz, the KJVO myth is completely man-made & therefore FALSE. No man-made doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture by at least strong implication can be true.

 

[JDS]

I use a variety of translations to obtain the best overview of Scripture & to give the Holy Spirit more to work with in my mind as He teaches me.

It is thanksgiving week. Maybe the Holy Ghost will send you a card thanking you for the help.

 

[JDS]

Depends entirely on your own definition of perfection.

Hmmmnnn, strange answer. I ask you what you thought, not what I thought. I have asked these fellows before if they teach the new bibles are without error, and of course none of them do. Funny thing though, they have found multiple errors in the KJV but have never produced a single error in any translation that has ever been on the market. Now, you throw in a bunch of paraphrases and seem to be making the same claim.

The 120 bibles and paraphrases that you listed are all without error, and if you answer yes, are they all inspired in their translation or production?

 

[robycop3]

It is thanksgiving week. Maybe the Holy Ghost will send you a card thanking you for the help.

If one doesn't have the material in one's mind, the HS isn't gonna add it. He causes one to understand the true meanings of what one has assimilated by reading or hearing.

 

[robycop3]

Hmmmnnn, strange answer. I ask you what you thought, not what I thought. I have asked these fellows before if they teach the new bibles are without error, and of course none of them do. Funny thing though, they have found multiple errors in the KJV but have never produced a single error in any translation that has ever been on the market. Now, you throw in a bunch of paraphrases and seem to be making the same claim.

The 120 bibles and paraphrases that you listed are all without error, and if you answer yes, are they all inspired in their translation or production?

That's only because KJVOs say their pet version has no errors.

Again, a reminder - All Bible translations are products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

 

[CES1951]

Again, a reminder - All Bible translations are products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

So, you're really saying they all have errors, and you can't trust any of them. I gotcha!

Personally, I believe telling someone that there is NO perfect Word of God because "man" translated them, is worse than a KJVO person, because it casts doubt on every Bible version! If, according to you, they're all imperfect, how do you believe anything that's in them? Unsaved people would have a field day with that! IMHO, that causes more damage to the cause of Christ than any KJVO person ever could. Did you ever stop and think about that? If you're witnessing to someone, and they ask you how they can believe the Bible, do you tell them..."well, since all the versions were translated by falable men, and some used different manuscripts than others, and some have verses that others don't, they all have mistakes." Now, how in the world is that person going to trust God's Word after you just cast doubt on it's believabilty? Can't you see that?

 

[SteveB]

Hmmmnnn, strange answer. I ask you what you thought, not what I thought.

I do this because I have a view of the word perfect that you may not have. So I'm giving you the opportunity to define your definition of the word perfect.
I have been doing this for several years now because I've learned across the years that people don't always use the same definitions.

I have asked these fellows before if they teach the new bibles are without error, and of course none of them do.

If I thought that God was incapable of retaining the integrity of his own words, then I wouldn't be a follower of Jesus.
Specifically because YHVH wouldn't be much of a god to not be able to ensure the integrity of his own words.
He'd be just another wannabe, johnny-come-lately.

Funny thing though, they have found multiple errors in the KJV but have never produced a single error in any translation that has ever been on the market. Now, you throw in a bunch of paraphrases and seem to be making the same claim.

Then perhaps you should study the Greek and Hebrew languages and create your own bible.
I stopped reading the kjv back in the1980's.

The 120 bibles and paraphrases that you listed are all without error, and if you answer yes, are they all inspired in their translation or production?

Would you like me to paste the Greek translations to do your own check?

 

[robycop3]

So, you're really saying they all have errors, and you can't trust any of them. I gotcha!

Personally, I believe telling someone that there is NO perfect Word of God because "man" translated them, is worse than a KJVO person, because it casts doubt on every Bible version! If, according to you, they're all imperfect, how do you believe anything that's in them? Unsaved people would have a field day with that! IMHO, that causes more damage to the cause of Christ than any KJVO person ever could. Did you ever stop and think about that? If you're witnessing to someone, and they ask you how they can believe the Bible, do you tell them..."well, since all the versions were translated by falable men, and some used different manuscripts than others, and some have verses that others don't, they all have mistakes." Now, how in the world is that person going to trust God's Word after you just cast doubt on it's believabilty? Can't you see that?

So, you think that men improved God's word ? Or, that any man besides Jesus was perfect ?

Can YOU show us an English Bible translation with no goofs or booboos ?

 

[CES1951]

Can YOU show us an English Bible translation with no goofs or booboos ?

With that statement, you just made my point.

 

[JDS]

I do this because I have a view of the word perfect that you may not have. So I'm giving you the opportunity to define your definition of the word perfect.
I have been doing this for several years now because I've learned across the years that people don't always use the same definitions.

Well, I have not given a lot of thought about it but since we are in the Bible context I thought of this admonition by our apostle, Paul. It says this.

Col 1:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Logic: If "in you" actually means in you, and Jesus Christ is perfect, meaning sinless and perfect in understanding, and in any other way that comes to mind, one would think the word of Christ is perfect. Where are we going to get that? I think your argument is the hand written manuscripts that are written in Hebrew and Greek. My idea is that since it is his command to us he surely has provided his word and it would do me no good to let these words in Hebrew and Greek, which I cannot read or understand dwell in me. What good would that do?

If I thought that God was incapable of retaining the integrity of his own words, then I wouldn't be a follower of Jesus.
Specifically because YHVH wouldn't be much of a god to not be able to ensure the integrity of his own words.
He'd be just another wannabe, johnny-come-lately.

I agree with that.

Then perhaps you should study the Greek and Hebrew languages and create your own bible.
I stopped reading the kjv back in the1980's.

If you can produce data that confirms your claim that Hebrew and Greek scholars are all in agreement doctrinally because they have the ability to do what you suggest I do, then I surely would want to do it. It is Hebrew and Greek scholars that are never satisfied with the number of translations we already have. They continually add more. Just wait, and you will have more translations than we have today because new Hebrew and Greek scholars are appearing on the scene that are better than the ones before, even though the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts do not change. One has to wonder when there will be enough translations from these same manuscripts in the same language and if the past practice of Hebrew and Greek scholars is any indication, the Lord Jesus will have to return to put a stop to it.

All the evidence that is available to us about Hebrew and Greek scholars is that they are all full of themselves. If you can point to one scholar who has changed his mind about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith because they are Hebrew and Greek scholars, i will be more inclined to follow your advice. At this point though, I am satisfied with one translation that I have complete confidence in because I can read it and more importantly, I can believe every word that it says.

On a personal note, I do not believe there are many saved Hebrew and Greek scholars. Those who are producing new bibles do not have a proper fear of God. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Would you like me to paste the Greek translations to do your own check?

It would not help me.

 

[robycop3]

With that statement, you just made my point.

Well, can you show us such a translation or not ?

 

[robycop3]

Well, I have not given a lot of thought about it but since we are in the Bible context I thought of this admonition by our apostle, Paul. It says this.

Col 1:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Logic: If "in you" actually means in you, and Jesus Christ is perfect, meaning sinless and perfect in understanding, and in any other way that comes to mind, one would think the word of Christ is perfect. Where are we going to get that? I think your argument is the hand written manuscripts that are written in Hebrew and Greek. My idea is that since it is his command to us he surely has provided his word and it would do me no good to let these words in Hebrew and Greek, which I cannot read or understand dwell in me. What good would that do?





I agree with that.


If you can produce data that confirms your claim that Hebrew and Greek scholars are all in agreement doctrinally because they have the ability to do what you suggest I do, then I surely would want to do it. It is Hebrew and Greek scholars that are never satisfied with the number of translations we already have. They continually add more. Just wait, and you will have more translations than we have today because new Hebrew and Greek scholars are appearing on the scene that are better than the ones before, even though the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts do not change. One has to wonder when there will be enough translations from these same manuscripts in the same language and if the past practice of Hebrew and Greek scholars is any indication, the Lord Jesus will have to return to put a stop to it.

All the evidence that is available to us about Hebrew and Greek scholars is that they are all full of themselves. If you can point to one scholar who has changed his mind about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith because they are Hebrew and Greek scholars, i will be more inclined to follow your advice. At this point though, I am satisfied with one translation that I have complete confidence in because I can read it and more importantly, I can believe every word that it says.





It would not help me.

So, you believe every word of a version with KNOWN & PROVEN errors ?

The reason Freedom Readers don't bother to point out errors in other English translations is because only KJVOs incorrectly claim their pet version is perfect, so we use the KJV's goofs to prove them wrong.

 

[JDS]

So, you believe every word of a version with KNOWN & PROVEN errors ?

The reason Freedom Readers don't bother to point out errors in other English translations is because only KJVOs incorrectly claim their pet version is perfect, so we use the KJV's goofs to prove them wrong.

You are elevating yourself pretty highly, doc. If you have the kind of knowledge that you are claiming for yourself, then we are surely waiting for your new modern version that removes all doubt about errors. Let me know when it hits the market.

The reason Freedom Readers don't bother to point out errors in other English translations is because only KJVOs incorrectly claim their pet version is perfect, so we use the KJV's goofs to prove them wrong.

I will give you two weeks to find an error in any new modern version, and I will even accept an error in a paraphrase if you can find one. Two weeks will be Dec 7. I will check in to see what you come up with.

 

[Bonnie]

It is a bad choice for many reasons.

1. It is not the most accurate translation.
2. It is largely a plagiarized work from the Geneva Bible. In other words, they STOLE the ideas and work of another to produce it.
3. The KJV largely follows the MT but should follow the LXX. The very Bible the apostles used.
4. The KJV is missing entire books that are referenced in other areas of Scriptures. In other words, there are reference in the KJV that point to verses that are not in the KJV itself.

I could go on and on but this is enough not to be KJV Preferred.

Actually, I though the majority of the KJV came from Tyndale's translation....?

 

[robycop3]

You are elevating yourself pretty highly, doc. If you have the kind of knowledge that you are claiming for yourself, then we are surely waiting for your new modern version that removes all doubt about errors. Let me know when it hits the market.

[/QUOTE]
Not in my job description. My job, aside from the duties of every Christian, is to work against false doctrines such as the KJVO myth.

I will give you two weeks to find an error in any new modern version, and I will even accept an error in a paraphrase if you can find one. Two weeks will be Dec 7. I will check in to see what you come up with.

[/QUOTE]

Easy!
In John 7:8, the NASV reads, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.” It should read, "I am not YET going..." as Jesus later went to the feast.

But no one claims the NASV is perfect, while KJVOs wrongly claim the KJV is.

 

[JDS]

Not in my job description. My job, aside from the duties of every Christian, is to work against false doctrines such as the KJVO myth.

[/QUOTE]

Easy!
In John 7:8, the NASV reads, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.” It should read, "I am not YET going..." as Jesus later went to the feast.

But no one claims the NASV is perfect, while KJVOs wrongly claim the KJV is.
[/QUOTE]

This is not a translation error, it is a manuscript error. Try again.

 

[robycop3]

Not in my job description. My job, aside from the duties of every Christian, is to work against false doctrines such as the KJVO myth.

Easy!
In John 7:8, the NASV reads, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.” It should read, "I am not YET going..." as Jesus later went to the feast.

But no one claims the NASV is perfect, while KJVOs wrongly claim the KJV is.
[/QUOTE]

This is not a translation error, it is a manuscript error. Try again.
[/QUOTE]
An error is an ERROR.
But here's another: In John 10:30, most translations read, "I & MY Father are one." But the NIV reads, "I & THE Father are one."

The KJV's "Easter" goof has been discussed ad nauseam, & it remains a goof. Care to comment on this KJV ADDITION to God's word, in direct violation of His command to not add to (nor subtract from His word ? The KJV ADDS the words "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. Those words don't appear in any knows ms. of Rev.

 

[JDS]

Easy!
In John 7:8, the NASV reads, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.” It should read, "I am not YET going..." as Jesus later went to the feast.

But no one claims the NASV is perfect, while KJVOs wrongly claim the KJV is.

This is not a translation error, it is a manuscript error. Try again.
[/QUOTE]
An error is an ERROR.
But here's another: In John 10:30, most translations read, "I & MY Father are one." But the NIV reads, "I & THE Father are one."

The KJV's "Easter" goof has been discussed ad nauseam, & it remains a goof. Care to comment on this KJV ADDITION to God's word, in direct violation of His command to not add to (nor subtract from His word ? The KJV ADDS the words "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. Those words don't appear in any knows ms. of Rev.
[/QUOTE]

The KJV adds it to what? The critical texts? The KJV was not translated from them. The fact is that you don't know what has been added to the KJV and what hasn't. You will have to take what you think you know on faith because I know you are not over 400 years old. That is all God is asking. Take what he says by faith. You have already said there is not a translation presented to you yet that you believe is the inerrant testimony of God. Now we find out you do not even trust the manuscripts (and I don't blame you). You are getting your god down on your level, at least. Both of you are nearly right. If you don't like the translations you have now, just wait a short time and the newest Hebrew and Greek scholars will give you some more, guaranteed.

 

[robycop3]

This is not a translation error, it is a manuscript error. Try again.

An error is an ERROR.
But here's another: In John 10:30, most translations read, "I & MY Father are one." But the NIV reads, "I & THE Father are one."

The KJV's "Easter" goof has been discussed ad nauseam, & it remains a goof. Care to comment on this KJV ADDITION to God's word, in direct violation of His command to not add to (nor subtract from His word ? The KJV ADDS the words "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. Those words don't appear in any knows ms. of Rev.
[/QUOTE]

The KJV adds it to what? The critical texts? The KJV was not translated from them. The fact is that you don't know what has been added to the KJV and what hasn't. You will have to take what you think you know on faith because I know you are not over 400 years old. That is all God is asking. Take what he says by faith. You have already said there is not a translation presented to you yet that you believe is the inerrant testimony of God. Now we find out you do not even trust the manuscripts (and I don't blame you). You are getting your god down on your level, at least. Both of you are nearly right. If you don't like the translations you have now, just wait a short time and the newest Hebrew and Greek scholars will give you some more, guaranteed.
[/QUOTE]

It appears you simply can't answer the query about Rev. 16:5 & don't wanna admit the KJV added words not found in any known ms. Typical KJVO attempt to dodge an unpleasant fact about their pet version & not being able to admit its faults.