The origin of the KJVO myth...

[Hark]

KJVOism coerces people into avoiding all Bibles except the KJV, which means, many of us would agree, a difficult read for contemporary audiences, thereby actually discouraging Bible reading.

Yet wisdom comes from the Lord.

The hype of getting a better English Bible to read than the KJV has gotten kind of old by now so why are they still making better to read English Bibles?

The problem is believers need to rely on Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit in them to understand His words.

As it is, believers reading all those modern bibles are not coming to an agreement about what the truth here is, especially when some antiKJVO do not believe in OSAS.

No anti-KJVO can prove the benefit of using all Bible versions to find the truth when they are all in disagreement of what that truth is.

Only God can cause the increase, but when all the Bibles are not saying the same thing, how can they get to the truth in His words/

I know the KJV is keeping the truth in His words whereas modern Bibles in various places are not but support false teachings & apostasy today.

John 16:13 in all Bible speak the truth but not all Bibles keep that truth in Romans 8:26-27, but the KJV & a few modern bibles do that the Holy Spirit cannot utter His own groanings.

Not al Bibles keep the truth about 1 Corinthians 1:18. but the KJV and some modern bibles do that we are saved.

By playing the elimination rounds with all Bibles, one may find himself or herself winding up with relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words where modern bibles actually support false teachings and apostasy.

 

[Hark]

You simply can't support your ckaims against modern bible versions. Just saying they differ from the KJV isn't proof. And you've been shown that the KJV has quite a few poor or incorrect translations.

Word preference is not incorrect translation. Changing the message that has been used to support false teachings is the point fo why relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to remove all doubts.

And you've not satisfactorily answered the fact that the KJV ADDS to God's word in Rev. 16:5 & SUBTRACTS from it in Jude 25, against God's express command to do neither.

That warning is given in Revelation but questioning the right translation when Strong's Concordance gave grounds for it should be obvious. Not every Greek word is translated into English but the message should be clear.

You know the Greek word for holy, right? What is the justification for translating "thus shalt be" to holy when referring to the present, then the past, and what? No future for how He judges? That string of Greek wordings for that verse is what is translated for the present, past, and future in regards to how God will judge. The message is not lost but holy removes the message of how He will judge in the future as He will presenty and how He has done in the past; righteously.

Jesus doesn't give you any more knowledge in understanding the KJV than He does me to understand newer versions. All claims of "advanced" or "extra" inspiration are bogus.

I do not see the KJV as perfect, but I do see the KJV as keeping the truths in His words whereas your bigotry against KJVO is blinding you to it.

And don't forget that the KJV was made for the British of the 17th century, as Wycliffe's was made for those of the 14 & 15th centuries. Far as English goes, God keeps His word current in it. When the Anglicans set out to make the AV, they weren't concerned with how English would be used 400 years later; they were concerned with the "then and there". I believe they knew their work would be built & improved on.

But Jesus also testified that as from the father that there will be those who do not love Jesus to keep His words. That has to apply to Bible versions.

You really need to stop depending upon such quacks as Will Kinney to supply intel to you. Most of their stuff is man-made, same as the KJVO myth itself, & is just-as-false.

Never heard of Will Kinney. Maybe I should start an ANTI anti-KJVO myth campaign? But it is not be a persuasion of a man's speech or post when it is on God to cause the increase.

You oppose OSAS but yet you believe you are saved and that Jesus is your Savior. You oppose yourself every time you tell people the Good News and yet rob believers of the joy of their salvation as if what was begun with the Spirit, you now have to finish by the flesh, because you can lose your salvation. Is that not the error of the Galatians? Maybe the Lord shall lead you to read that again? You can lose your inheritance from being that vessel unto honor in His House by sowing to the works of the flesh, but you cannot lose your salvation. You just wind up as a vessel unto dishonor in His House because OSAS is true so you & I can tell believers and sinners that Good News that Jesus Christ IS the Savior.

 

[robycop3]

This "saved/are being saved" horse feathers comes from the garbage of several KJVO authors, who, desperate for any excuse to try to justify their false doctrine, invented it.

I've heard more than one traveling evangelist, his roadies, or posters say something on the order of (Tent meetings all week! Scores ARE BEING SAVED at each one!" I believe that's what Paul meant, as not every Corinthian who attended his meetings was saved at once. More were being saved in successive services.

But anyway, it's horse feathers.

 

[robycop3]

Word preference is not incorrect translation. Changing the message that has been used to support false teachings is the point fo why relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to remove all doubts.

One can rely on any of several other English versions as well. The KJV isn't in OUR lingo. And EVERY translator has word preferences, same as the AV men did.

That warning is given in Revelation but questioning the right translation when Strong's Concordance gave grounds for it should be obvious. Not every Greek word is translated into English but the message should be clear.

The same warning is given in Deut. 4;2. And ADDING OR SUBTRACTING is NOT leaving anything untranslated; it's MAN-MADE CHANGES.

You know the Greek word for holy, right? What is the justification for translating "thus shalt be" to holy when referring to the present, then the past, and what? No future for how He judges? That string of Greek wordings for that verse is what is translated for the present, past, and future in regards to how God will judge. The message is not lost but holy removes the message of how He will judge in the future as He will presenty and how He has done in the past; righteously.

No; it's an ADDITION to God's word, plain-n-simple! You cannot justify it !

I do not see the KJV as perfect, but I do see the KJV as keeping the truths in His words whereas your bigotry against KJVO is blinding you to it.

Well, maybe you're getting somewhere. NO translation is absolutely, technically perfect.

But Jesus also testified that as from the father that there will be those who do not love Jesus to keep His words. That has to apply to Bible versions.

Horse Feathers ! The Bible version being used to preach/witness must be understandable to the audience as well as the preacher/teacher.

Never heard of Will Kinney. Maybe I should start an ANTI anti-KJVO myth campaign? But it is not be a persuasion of a man's speech or post when it is on God to cause the increase.

I think you posted a meme of his on the Baptist Board.

You oppose OSAS but yet you believe you are saved and that Jesus is your Savior. You oppose yourself every time you tell people the Good News and yet rob believers of the joy of their salvation as if what was begun with the Spirit, you now have to finish by the flesh, because you can lose your salvation. Is that not the error of the Galatians? Maybe the Lord shall lead you to read that again? You can lose your inheritance from being that vessel unto honor in His House by sowing to the works of the flesh, but you cannot lose your salvation. You just wind up as a vessel unto dishonor in His House because OSAS is true so you & I can tell believers and sinners that Good News that Jesus Christ IS the Savior.

If a saint turns his back on Jesus & rejects Him, he has let go of Jesus & can't come back. Again, I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN !

 

[Hark]

This "saved/are being saved" horse feathers comes from the garbage of several KJVO authors, who, desperate for any excuse to try to justify their false doctrine, invented it.

I've heard more than one traveling evangelist, his roadies, or posters say something on the order of (Tent meetings all week! Scores ARE BEING SAVED at each one!" I believe that's what Paul meant, as not every Corinthian who attended his meetings was saved at once. More were being saved in successive services.

But anyway, it's horse feathers.

Not when Paul is including himself within that message as "unto us which are saved".

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Otherwise, you are applying that verse to mean as if Paul is being saved every time new believers are believing the preaching of the cross.

Or do you believe every time you preach the cross and when somebody believes and is saved, you are saved again?

Translating it to mean that is horse feathers.

 

[Hark]

One can rely on any of several other English versions as well.

No. I know I cannot.

The KJV isn't in OUR lingo. And EVERY translator has word preferences, same as the AV men did.

I am doing fine, thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd & Friend.

The same warning is given in Deut. 4;2. And ADDING OR SUBTRACTING is NOT leaving anything untranslated; it's MAN-MADE CHANGES.


No; it's an ADDITION to God's word, plain-n-simple! You cannot justify it !

How do you justify putting "holy" in its place?

Well, maybe you're getting somewhere. NO translation is absolutely, technically perfect.

What do you call a Bible version that changed the message that supports false teachings?

Horse Feathers ! The Bible version being used to preach/witness must be understandable to the audience as well as the preacher/teacher.

Still ignoring the warning from the Father that Jesus said there will be those who do not love Him to keep His sayings.

I think you posted a meme of his on the Baptist Board.

Not sure anyone can claim originality any more. I have never read Will Kinney so if I had posted in other forums something similar...mere coincidence. Not even sure how to post a meme anywhere for whatever is considered a meme.

If a saint turns his back on Jesus & rejects Him, he has let go of Jesus & can't come back. Again, I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN !

I know it can happen, but your conclusion is wrong. The prodigal son may miss out on the firstfruits of the resurrection in living the wild life, but he is still son. He will be sorry for neglecting so great a salvation. He will get stripes per the measure of knowledge he had for not being ready ( Luke 12:40-49 ) There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth as that loss will be son keen that God has to wipe the tears from the eyes of those coming out of the great tribulation to get past that loss. There is a damnation and that is becoming a vessel unto dishonor in His House for not departing from iniquity before the Bridegroom comes. He will become the least in the kingdom of Heaven in serving the King of kings on earth. But the Father will scourge every child He receives for not running that race by looking to Jesus to help them lay aside every weight & sin daily.

You best pray, brother, asking Jesus to get you ready.. to trust Him as your Good Shepherd to prune anything that denies Him ( and OSAS is denying Him as having saved you and thus denying Him as Savior ) so you will be ready to go. We are saved, and with Jesus Christ in us, we are able to run that race for the high prize of our calling by trusting Him as our Good Shepherd to finish that race and bring us Home as a vessel unto honor in His House which is to His glory..

 

[robycop3]

Not when Paul is including himself within that message as "unto us which are saved".

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Otherwise, you are applying that verse to mean as if Paul is being saved every time new believers are believing the preaching of the cross.

Or do you believe every time you preach the cross and when somebody believes and is saved, you are saved again?

Translating it to mean that is horse feathers.

More Horse Feathers! Paul, of course, was saved before any of the Corinthians he was writing to, and naturally an unsaved teacher couldn't lead anyone to Jesus. And most, but not all, of his Corinthian readership, was already saved, but more WOULD be saved. Paul was speaking of the fact that more Corinthians were being saved as time went on.

You're simply trying to resume an old semantics war the KJVOs lost long ago. While I admit there are several instances in which a MV erred, but the KJV got right, there are a good many that are vice-versa.

You simply cannot justify the KJVO myth. You cannot justify believing a MAN-MADE doctrine of faith/worship not found by the slightest implication in ANY valid Bible version.

 

[robycop3]

No. I know I cannot.

That's YOUR problem, and it shows in some of the other false doctrines you believe.

I am doing fine, thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd & Friend.

Good for you! But not everyone is so fortunate.

How do you justify putting "holy" in its place?

Never said I did.

What do you call a Bible version that changed the message that supports false teachings?

Depends on whether or not the changes are correct or not.

Still ignoring the warning from the Father that Jesus said there will be those who do not love Him to keep His sayings.

So, can you prove I'm not? Jesus didn't give His word in 17th C. English.

Not sure anyone can claim originality any more. I have never read Will Kinney so if I had posted in other forums something similar...mere coincidence. Not even sure how to post a meme anywhere for whatever is considered a meme.

Most KJVOs get their garbage from one or all the first 3 boox written about it.

I know it can happen, but your conclusion is wrong. The prodigal son may miss out on the firstfruits of the resurrection in living the wild life, but he is still son. He will be sorry for neglecting so great a salvation. He will get stripes per the measure of knowledge he had for not being ready ( Luke 12:40-49 ) There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth as that loss will be son keen that God has to wipe the tears from the eyes of those coming out of the great tribulation to get past that loss. There is a damnation and that is becoming a vessel unto dishonor in His House for not departing from iniquity before the Bridegroom comes. He will become the least in the kingdom of Heaven in serving the King of kings on earth. But the Father will scourge every child He receives for not running that race by looking to Jesus to help them lay aside every weight & sin daily.

No, my conclusion isn't wrong. The PS never REJECTED his father as his father.

All saints who are saints at the rapture will be caught up. And there'll be trib saints who will realize what the rapture was, & come to Jesus.

You best pray, brother, asking Jesus to get you ready.. to trust Him as your Good Shepherd to prune anything that denies Him ( and OSAS is denying Him as having saved you and thus denying Him as Savior ) so you will be ready to go. We are saved, and with Jesus Christ in us, we are able to run that race for the high prize of our calling by trusting Him as our Good Shepherd to finish that race and bring us Home as a vessel unto honor in His House which is to His glory..

I don't intend to ever turn my back or attention from Him. I have seen 2 actual miracles. While not everyone has been that fortunate, it certainly solidified my faith & removed whatever skepticism I may have had. So now, I work against false doctrines such as this KJVO myth, as well as others. And YOU, Sir, have several of those yourself that you need to purge ! The WORST is the BLASPHEMY that some saints will be left behind at the rapture! That's TOTALLY-FALSE, & is in effect saying that Jesus can't keep up with all His saints, & some fall thru the cracks when He comes for them! A pox upon whoever taught you that blasphemous garbage !

 

[Hark]

More Horse Feathers! Paul, of course, was saved before any of the Corinthians he was writing to, and naturally an unsaved teacher couldn't lead anyone to Jesus. And most, but not all, of his Corinthian readership, was already saved, but more WOULD be saved. Paul was speaking of the fact that more Corinthians were being saved as time went on.

You're simply trying to resume an old semantics war the KJVOs lost long ago. While I admit there are several instances in which a MV erred, but the KJV got right, there are a good many that are vice-versa.

You simply cannot justify the KJVO myth. You cannot justify believing a MAN-MADE doctrine of faith/worship not found by the slightest implication in ANY valid Bible version.

I think you are unable to see how you are opposing yourself.

Is Paul including himself with the "us" as saved or not? Then it cannot be about "are being saved" to those they preach to. It is about what happens after anyone believes in the reaching of the cross. Those who believe as unto us. are saved. That's the message as Paul included himself.

 

[Woody50]

The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from?

Not at all. It's called sin.

 

[Hark]

That's YOUR problem, and it shows in some of the other false doctrines you believe.

One of these days, you will find out whether they are all false or not.

Good for you! But not everyone is so fortunate.

They can be fortunate when they look to Jesus Christ & trust Him as their Good Shepherd & Friend to help them follow Him as His Friend.

Never said I did.

Well, it is either "thou shalt be" or it is "holy". I doubt the apostle John nor God meant for it to remain untranslated into English.

Depends on whether or not the changes are correct or not.

One can hope in the Lord Jesus Christ for that.

So, can you prove I'm not? Jesus didn't give His word in 17th C. English.

Do you acknowledge that the "keeping of our souls" is dropped in some modern Bibles while they kept it in the KJV regarding 1 Peter 4:19?

Does it not change the message in modern bibles when they do that as if believers that suffer are making a commitment to God and in doing good when that is not the message at all but Him doing a good job in keeping our souls while the saints suffer?

Most KJVOs get their garbage from one or all the first 3 boox written about it.

Then I reckon I am not KJVO, but just someone that relies only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words with His help as my Good Shepherd.

No, my conclusion isn't wrong. The PS never REJECTED his father as his father.

The prodigal son did not believe his father would accept him but maybe as a servant.

Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

All saints who are saints at the rapture will be caught up. And there'll be trib saints who will realize what the rapture was, & come to Jesus.

I know that for you to rationalize that is to believe that those cut off were never saved in the first place, but you are opposing yourself here because for them to be cut off is why you do not believe in OSAS.

I don't intend to ever turn my back or attention from Him. I have seen 2 actual miracles. While not everyone has been that fortunate, it certainly solidified my faith & removed whatever skepticism I may have had. So now, I work against false doctrines such as this KJVO myth, as well as others. And YOU, Sir, have several of those yourself that you need to purge ! The WORST is the BLASPHEMY that some saints will be left behind at the rapture! That's TOTALLY-FALSE, & is in effect saying that Jesus can't keep up with all His saints, & some fall thru the cracks when He comes for them! A pox upon whoever taught you that blasphemous garbage !

Then why don't you believe in OSAS if those that are really saved, then they cannot become castaway, right? But Paul says it can happen to him.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

So those left behind did not lose their salvation; they did not heed His words and His warnings to be ready for why they were left behind.

 

[logos1560]

That warning is given in Revelation but questioning the right translation when Strong's Concordance gave grounds for it should be obvious. Not every Greek word is translated into English but the message should be clear.

Strong's Concordance did not give any grounds from actual Greek NT manuscript copies for the KJV's rendering. Strong's Concordance was merely giving English renderings for a Greek word introduced by Beza as a conjecture in his printed Greek edition, but Beza's conjecture is not found in any known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

 

[robycop3]

One of these days, you will find out whether they are all false or not.

I've already found out, as most are man-made & therefore false.

They can be fortunate when they look to Jesus Christ & trust Him as their Good Shepherd & Friend to help them follow Him as His Friend.

And they don't need the KJV for that.

Well, it is either "thou shalt be" or it is "holy". I doubt the apostle John nor God meant for it to remain untranslated into English.

There's neither in Rev. 16:5.

One can hope in the Lord Jesus Christ for that.

That's why He has provided translators for many generations.

Do you acknowledge that the "keeping of our souls" is dropped in some modern Bibles while they kept it in the KJV regarding 1 Peter 4:19?

Most say "commit their souls' or equivalent. "Keeping" is somewhat of a stretch if one studies the Greek.

Does it not change the message in modern bibles when they do that as if believers that suffer are making a commitment to God and in doing good when that is not the message at all but Him doing a good job in keeping our souls while the saints suffer?

The newer versions translate the Greek a little better.

Then I reckon I am not KJVO, but just someone that relies only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words with His help as my Good Shepherd.

The KJV (nor any other English version) is "His words" They're all TRANSLATIONS of His words.

The prodigal son did not believe his father would accept him but maybe as a servant.

Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

But again, he hadn't rejected his father !

I know that for you to rationalize that is to believe that those cut off were never saved in the first place, but you are opposing yourself here because for them to be cut off is why you do not believe in OSAS.

I don't believe OSAS because it's not true.Hebrews 6:4-6 makes that clear.

Then why don't you believe in OSAS if those that are really saved, then they cannot become castaway, right? But Paul says it can happen to him.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Paul knew he had to continue to worship & obey Jesus, that if he turned his back on Him, he'd be lost again & unable to come back.

So those left behind did not lose their salvation; they did not heed His words and His warnings to be ready for why they were left behind.

No; they'll be left behind because they won't be saved when the rapture occurs. You must get that BLASPHEMY out of your head that there'll be saints left behind at the rapture.

 

[Hark]

Strong's Concordance did not give any grounds from actual Greek NT manuscript copies for the KJV's rendering. Strong's Concordance was merely giving English renderings for a Greek word introduced by Beza as a conjecture in his printed Greek edition, but Beza's conjecture is not found in any known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

And what about the replacing of "thou shalt be" with "holy"? What is the Greek word for "holy"? Where did that word come from? Conjecture?

 

[robycop3]

And what about the replacing of "thou shalt be" with "holy"? What is the Greek word for "holy"? Where did that word come from? Conjecture?

The Greek word "kyrios" means lord or master, & was a title given to God. And, of course, it's implied He is holy. And "Holy One" is also a title given to God.

 

[Hark]

The Greek word "kyrios" means lord or master, & was a title given to God. And, of course, it's implied He is holy. And "Holy One" is also a title given to God.

So I learn something else today that holy did not replace "Thou shalt be." Where I got that from in the course of our discussion is not important now. I just need to stop taking things at face value from others when obviously, clarity was needed. Let us move on.

Compare the Bible versions with the KJV at that link below.

Bibles Comparison of Revelation 16:5

Now unless you have a referred selection out of all of that as a Freedom Reader, note the differences in all of them.

Your claim that "kyrios" means Lord and Master and thus implied He is Holy or Holy One, does not change your charge about adding what was not written.

The Greek word "dikaios" is before "kurios" or your "kyrios" and that means "by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):--just, meet, right(-eous)."

So Thou art righteous O Lord or addressing how just the Holy One is in giving judgments is not missed.

However, since it is about prophetic events for what the apostle John is writing about, then the future judgement we are seeing needs to be addressed in regards to how He has judged in the present as in the past for what John is hearing the angel of the waters in how He will judge in the future.

The warning given for adding to His words in the Book of Revelation is the consequence of adding plagues. No plague broke out when the KJV came out. No plague broke out when the other Bible versions came out. Why? The message is the same in Revelation 16:5 seems to be the discernment I have.

But that does not mean the messages has not been changed in other books of the modern bibles for why I rely only on the KJV thanks to Jesus Christ.

 

[logos1560]

And what about the replacing of "thou shalt be" with "holy"? What is the Greek word for "holy"? Where did that word come from? Conjecture?

Actually according to the known facts you have it backwards. All known preserved Greek NT manuscripts have the Greek word for holy at Revelation 16:5 while Beza replaced it with his conjecture in his edited, changed Greek NT edition.

This fact can also be seen in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, indicating that the earlier Textus Receptus editions before Beza had the Greek word for holy in them. At Revelation 16:5, Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

 

[robycop3]

So I learn something else today that holy did not replace "Thou shalt be." Where I got that from in the course of our discussion is not important now. I just need to stop taking things at face value from others when obviously, clarity was needed. Let us move on.

Compare the Bible versions with the KJV at that link below.

Bibles Comparison of Revelation 16:5

Now unless you have a referred selection out of all of that as a Freedom Reader, note the differences in all of them.

Different versions with different translators.

Your claim that "kyrios" means Lord and Master and thus implied He is Holy or Holy One, does not change your charge about adding what was not written.

That charge is true.

The Greek word "dikaios" is before "kurios" or your "kyrios" and that means "by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):--just, meet, right(-eous)."

So Thou art righteous O Lord or addressing how just the Holy One is in giving judgments is not missed.

However, since it is about prophetic events for what the apostle John is writing about, then the future judgement we are seeing needs to be addressed in regards to how He has judged in the present as in the past for what John is hearing the angel of the waters in how He will judge in the future.

The warning given for adding to His words in the Book of Revelation is the consequence of adding plagues. No plague broke out when the KJV came out. No plague broke out when the other Bible versions came out. Why? The message is the same in Revelation 16:5 seems to be the discernment I have.

But who knows what plagues will be added to those who did add to God's words & died unsaved.

But that does not mean the messages has not been changed in other books of the modern bibles for why I rely only on the KJV thanks to Jesus Christ.

The messages you say were changed might've been incorrect in the KJV & so were corrected in newer versions, such as the KJV's "Easter" goof, or the poor renderings in1 Tim. 6:10. or Ex. 20:13, among others..

 

[Hark]

Actually according to the known facts you have it backwards. All known preserved Greek NT manuscripts have the Greek word for holy at Revelation 16:5 while Beza replaced it with his conjecture in his edited, changed Greek NT edition.

This fact can also be seen in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, indicating that the earlier Textus Receptus editions before Beza had the Greek word for holy in them. At Revelation 16:5, Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

Still not seeing any plagues breaking out back then when "adding to His words" in the Book of Revelation for either case; the KJV or the Geneva that had it otherwise. Is it because the message has not changed for how He judges? I would say so and that should be proof that you guys are straining at the gnat on that particular issue.

Amazing when it comes to books outside of Revelation .. like Peter 4:19 where some modern Bibles dropped the "keeping of our souls" and make 1 Peter 4:19 a false message of making a commitment to Christ & doing good which Jesus spoke against it in Matthew 5:33-37 because of verse 36 where we cannot do anything that is His work by the deeds of the law for why it is written that the just shall live by faith in Him & His words to us.

That is one of the biggest apostasy today in Christianity as led by the late Billy Graham & still by Franklin, that if you are not sure you are saved, make a commitment to follow Christ.. which is the exact opposite of the gospel he had preached which is all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Bait & switch con game on the spiritual realm as all who believe in Him gets saved, but wind up like the Galatians in looking to keep that commitment to follow Christ in order to gain the assurance of salvation. That is why Billy Graham said in his interview with Tony Snow that he was not sure Jesus would receive him because he was not always a good Christian for by that commitment is the knowledge of sin and therefore the keeping of it was for his assurance of justification = apostasy.

But nobody sees it for how Promise Keepers built on that apostasy as if making a commitment to follow Christ was not enough to make men obedient by the deeds of the law in being good husbands and good fathers & good leaders in the churches & communities in following Him..

Thanks to the errant message in 1 Peter 4:19 in some modern bibles, who can see that error as it supports that apostasy?

 

[robycop3]

Still not seeing any plagues breaking out back then when "adding to His words" in the Book of Revelation for either case; the KJV or the Geneva that had it otherwise. Is it because the message has not changed for how He judges? I would say so and that should be proof that you guys are straining at the gnat on that particular issue.

Amazing when it comes to books outside of Revelation .. like Peter 4:19 where some modern Bibles dropped the "keeping of our souls" and make 1 Peter 4:19 a false message of making a commitment to Christ & doing good which Jesus spoke against it in Matthew 5:33-37 because of verse 36 where we cannot do anything that is His work by the deeds of the law for why it is written that the just shall live by faith in Him & His words to us.

That is one of the biggest apostasy today in Christianity as led by the late Billy Graham & still by Franklin, that if you are not sure you are saved, make a commitment to follow Christ.. which is the exact opposite of the gospel he had preached which is all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Bait & switch con game on the spiritual realm as all who believe in Him gets saved, but wind up like the Galatians in looking to keep that commitment to follow Christ in order to gain the assurance of salvation. That is why Billy Graham said in his interview with Tony Snow that he was not sure Jesus would receive him because he was not always a good Christian for by that commitment is the knowledge of sin and therefore the keeping of it was for his assurance of justification = apostasy.

But nobody sees it for how Promise Keepers built on that apostasy as if making a commitment to follow Christ was not enough to make men obedient by the deeds of the law in being good husbands and good fathers & good leaders in the churches & communities in following Him..

Thanks to the errant message in 1 Peter 4:19 in some modern bibles, who can see that error as it supports that apostasy?

If a translation does not follow the sources being translated closely as possible, given the differences in languages, it's incorrect. Common sense.