The origin of the KJVO myth...

Hark

Well-known member
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..
Not when the KJV aligns with the truths in scripture in that same KJV whereas the modern Bibles do not.

Just because you say poor renderings does not mean the KJV has not kept the meaning of His words and thus the truth. The Lord Jesus Christ along with the Holy Spirit in me are helping me understand His words quite well for me to be found abiding in Him when He comes.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
So... John 14:23-24 & John 15:20 does apply that you need to rely on Jesus Christ to discern which Bible version loves Him that keeps His words.

You cannot be a Freedom Reader, but a Discerning by Him Reader.
Nothing to do with the accuracy of a translation.

And Freedom Readers are free from being in thrall to such garbage as the KJVO myth. We are free to use any Bible version we choose. (And so are YOU; you've just made a bad choice.)
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Not when the KJV aligns with the truths in scripture in that same KJV whereas the modern Bibles do not.

Just because you say poor renderings does not mean the KJV has not kept the meaning of His words and thus the truth. The Lord Jesus Christ along with the Holy Spirit in me are helping me understand His words quite well for me to be found abiding in Him when He comes.
They could do better in you if you read more Bible versions.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Nothing to do with the accuracy of a translation.

And Freedom Readers are free from being in thrall to such garbage as the KJVO myth. We are free to use any Bible version we choose. (And so are YOU; you've just made a bad choice.)
Try correcting someone by the scripture when another Freedom Reader will side step your correction by picking another Bible version.
 

Hark

Well-known member
They could do better in you if you read more Bible versions.
... which may be the CORRECT translation.
As far as I can see, it is because of modern bibles I have been unable to correct any one of their false teachings.

I doubt you can either when any modern Bible version you se will sow doubts in His words to not know the truth. I rely only on the KJV for that is how the Good shepherd has led me to for when I read the truth in the KJV, my heart was glad and my spirit rejoiced.

I had used the NIV and the NASB. It was the KJV that the Lord led me to to read the truth in His words. And He is keeping me for there is no going back on that, brother.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
As far as I can see, it is because of modern bibles I have been unable to correct any one of their false teachings.

I doubt you can either when any modern Bible version you se will sow doubts in His words to not know the truth. I rely only on the KJV for that is how the Good shepherd has led me to for when I read the truth in the KJV, my heart was glad and my spirit rejoiced.

I had used the NIV and the NASB. It was the KJV that the Lord led me to to read the truth in His words. And He is keeping me for there is no going back on that, brother.
So, Easter" in the KJV is correct?
"And shalt be" in Rev. 16;5 is correct?
The omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25 is correct ?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
As far as I can see, it is because of modern bibles I have been unable to correct any one of their false teachings.
Odd. How well do you do correcting Mormons' and JWs' false teachings? (You don't seem to be doing too well "correcting" non-KJVO folks.)
 

Hark

Well-known member
So, Easter" in the KJV is correct?
When Tyndale meant Easter to be the same thing as the Passover, yes, originally, it is correct.
"And shalt be" in Rev. 16;5 is correct?
Yes. when it is how Jesus is when He judges which is the same in the future.
The omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25 is correct ?
That's a new one that you had brought to my attention.

The KJV has it right because Jesus Christ is the God and the Savior.

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. KJV

Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. NIV

NIV makes it look like how God is the Savior by using Jesus Christ as the means for how He saved others. No wonder believers are denying His deity. According to the Textus Receptus, there was no dropping of any Greek words in that verse from which the NIV can claim that the KJV had dropped words. It looks like the NIV added words..
 

Hark

Well-known member
Odd. How well do you do correcting Mormons' and JWs' false teachings? (You don't seem to be doing too well "correcting" non-KJVO folks.)
The funny thing about that is, when the KJV reproves what they are teaching, they go to another Bible version whether they admit this or not. That has happened to me enough times in other forums to know that.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
When Tyndale meant Easter to be the same thing as the Passover, yes, originally, it is correct.
Tyndale had 2nd thoughts about "Easter" being correct, so he coined 'passover'.
Yes. when it is how Jesus is when He judges which is the same in the future.
Then if the words in the verse are correct, please show us a legitimate ancient ms. of Revelation that has those words in that verse.
That's a new one that you had brought to my attention.

The KJV has it right because Jesus Christ is the God and the Savior.
How can it be correct when it's omitted from the verse?
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. KJV

Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. NIV

NIV makes it look like how God is the Savior by using Jesus Christ as the means for how He saved others. No wonder believers are denying His deity. According to the Textus Receptus, there was no dropping of any Greek words in that verse from which the NIV can claim that the KJV had dropped words. It looks like the NIV added words..
What makes you think the TR is correct when it's already been proven that it has at least one "conjectural emendation" by Beza, not found in any known ms? And WHICH VERSION of the TR is correct when it's been revised over 30 times, & in the 1870s, & Dean John Burgon wrote that it could stand another thorough revision ?
 

Hark

Well-known member
Tyndale had 2nd thoughts about "Easter" being correct, so he coined 'passover'.
You cannot believe that when it would be so easy after he was done translating that Bible to change Easter in the N.T. to Passover in the O.T.
Then if the words in the verse are correct, please show us a legitimate ancient ms. of Revelation that has those words in that verse.
Ask Jesus at that throne of grace for the final confirmation.
How can it be correct when it's omitted from the verse?

What makes you think the TR is correct when it's already been proven that it has at least one "conjectural emendation" by Beza, not found in any known ms? And WHICH VERSION of the TR is correct when it's been revised over 30 times, & in the 1870s, & Dean John Burgon wrote that it could stand another thorough revision ?
Check with Jesus Christ. Then ask Him if it is true that the NIV can be used by those that do not believe in the deity of Christ as if God & Savior did His thing thru Jesus Christ instead of seeing Jesus Christ as that God and Savior?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
You cannot believe that when it would be so easy after he was done translating that Bible to change Easter in the N.T. to Passover in the O.T.
Why not? many other bible versions were revised.
Ask Jesus at that throne of grace for the final confirmation.
In other words, you're stumped & have no explanation, but are too in thrall to the KJVO myth to admit it was ADDED BY MEN to God's word.
Check with Jesus Christ. Then ask Him if it is true that the NIV can be used by those that do not believe in the deity of Christ as if God & Savior did His thing thru Jesus Christ instead of seeing Jesus Christ as that God and Savior?
Any Bible version can be used by non-believers. But that doesn't cover the OMISSION in the KJV.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Why not? many other bible versions were revised.
And yet you believe Tyndale would not revise his own Bible?
In other words, you're stumped & have no explanation, but are too in thrall to the KJVO myth to admit it was ADDED BY MEN to God's word.
No. You are still stuck on wanting Easter to be a mistake when it was dropped out of use as representing as the same thing as the Passover in Tyndale's Bible. It is almost like you are just not wanting to be wrong about it being a goof in the KJV.
Any Bible version can be used by non-believers. But that doesn't cover the OMISSION in the KJV.
If there are no Greek words in the TR that proves those words were dropped in the KJV, then you do protest way too much. Rather that charge should be the NIV added it unless you can prove by the Greek documents from Alexandria that those Greek words were there to translated that as is from in the NIV, but you have not been forthcoming to prove it was originally in the Greek manuscripts when the TR does not have it.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
And yet you believe Tyndale would not revise his own Bible?
Why not? He had enough to do to stay ahead of his persecutors.
No. You are still stuck on wanting Easter to be a mistake when it was dropped out of use as representing as the same thing as the Passover in Tyndale's Bible. It is almost like you are just not wanting to be wrong about it being a goof in the KJV.
Continuing to use Easter for passover is/was a goof.
If there are no Greek words in the TR that proves those words were dropped in the KJV, then you do protest way too much. Rather that charge should be the NIV added it unless you can prove by the Greek documents from Alexandria that those Greek words were there to translated that as is from in the NIV, but you have not been forthcoming to prove it was originally in the Greek manuscripts when the TR does not have it.
Then the TR goofed & the KJV went with the goof instead of all available mss.
 

Shoonra

Active member
The goof was not in the TR, which, like the Critical Text, has Pascha in Acts 12:4. The goof, if it is a goof, is in the English translation.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
The goof was not in the TR, which, like the Critical Text, has Pascha in Acts 12:4. The goof, if it is a goof, is in the English translation.
I was speaking of the words "and shalt be' in the KJV's Rev. 16:5. I believe the "Easter" goof was added by a prelate(s) to the KJV's text.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I see NO KJVO has tried to deny the man-made origin of the KJVO myth. It was invented by Satan, who influenced certain men to write it & spread it.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Also, no KJVO has any answer for the FACT that the KJVO myth is not found in Scripture by the slightest implication, not even in the KJV itself. That fact alone makes it FALSE, as no doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture is true-notwithstanding all the lies within that myth itself.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Also, no KJVO has any answer for the FACT that the KJVO myth is not found in Scripture by the slightest implication, not even in the KJV itself. That fact alone makes it FALSE, as no doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture is true-notwithstanding all the lies within that myth itself.
As Roman Catholics have placed their trust in the RCC, the KJVO-ists have put their trust in the KJV. The similarities between their arguments are quite amazing, despite their being theologically opposed.

--Rich
 
Top