The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[fredoheaven]

I do not and will not trust the Byzantine manuscripts. I've read too much about how badly copied they are. There are so many mistakes from generation to generation.

Mark 7:14-16

King James Version

14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Here is Horts attitude or view of the TR. He called the TR as vile, villainous Textus Receptus. Am I not seeing the same thing?


https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You said:
"As far as vocabulary, I was reading a paper by a Greek scholar about 50 false friends in the KJV. False friends are words that we know in modern English, but they mean something totally different in KJ English as opposed to modern English."

Mark Ward false friends is not new. He only repeats the same error from the past critics who have already been reputed. You don’t even realize that he cannot defend himself from factual discussions and later backout from the site I also joined.

You said:
"I've never used the West and Horcott versions. I read the SBL. It also has alternate readings at the bottom of each page."

This is quite true because we don’t have the ‘West and Horcott versions’ in textual criticism so you never used it., However, the SBL has a mix reading of the critical Greek Text of Wescott and Hort plus the Byzantine text. Treg, NIV is a byproduct of Wescott and Hort. To deny the fact makes no sense. Another thing about this SBL is a work of one man ‘editor’ and not a translator. This is bogus scholarship. Below is the text of SBL, you can correct me here is this is not true.




https://sblgnt.com/about/introduction/

 

[fredoheaven]

I spent 2 solid years studying Seminary Greek, memorized down to 5 occurrences of a word in the NT. I can read it, I understand translation issues.

2 yrs is great but here is also a fine scholarship I believe…at 6 years of age John Bois could write Hebrew and for 12 years, was a CHIEF Lecturer in Greek., Andrew Downes, the ‘Walking Library’, Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge yet these able men and others didn’t base their own wits in their labours. but seek rather the guidance of the Lord to produce what we now have the KJB.


https://thekingsbible.com/Library/KJVTranslators


https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/Andrew_Downes/

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I do not and will not trust the Byzantine manuscripts. I've read too much about how badly copied they are.

Because they have their own narrative and position to protect.
All recent dictionaries are by Modern scholars and they are only guessing as to what these languages say that are dead.

There are so many mistakes from generation to generation.

But there is no mistake with God if He wants to preserve His words and I believe the promises of His Word by faith that He has (Psalms 12:6-7).

I do totally understand 2nd personal singular in French, German, Koine Greek, Hebrew & Ukrainian which I have studied. I agree it is useful.

But Modern English bibles deceive you to think otherwise. If they translated correctly, they would have put this personal pronoun distinction in the Modern Bibles but they didn’t. So people are deceived in following something that is not true when they read a Modern English Bible.

I've never studied it in English. I don't know a thee from a thou, nor do I know the hundreds of verbs forms for 2nd person singular. At one time, people knew this, and KJV was much more useful. In fact, it would be more useful to have this verb form in English today. But we don't. No one really studies or understands it. That is what makes it obsolete.

Uh, no. People do and can understand the personal pronouns in the KJB.
I understand them just fine. Anything with “T” is singular. Anything with a “Y” is plural, including the word “you.”
It’s that simple. They even had a KJVER Sword Bible that added a small letter p above the word “you” to let you know it is referring to singular you, or two or more people. Keep in mind that the KJVER Sword Bible is a subtle deception by your side. They have put critical text readings in the definitions of certain words. They say a sodomite is a male temple prostitute. But if we just read about the story of Sodom, we know what kind of sins they are identified with that led to their destruction.

As far as vocabulary, I was reading a paper by a Greek scholar about 50 false friends in the KJV. False friends are words that we know in modern English, but they mean something totally different in KJ English as opposed to modern English. There was an interesting discussion in a scholarly Bible language group I follow about the KJV. A few people actually supported it. But by and large, most of these scholars did not support it. I took first & second year Koine Greek from Bill Mounce, one of the top Translators in the world. He could talk extensively in the limitations of the KJV and why.

He is using a Modern scholar dictionary for his definitions in many cases. While they can be correct at times, sometimes they are not always correct. I can also say it is a false friend to suggest you can know a dead language like back in the day like Hebrew and Greek. We are only guessing as to what they are saying. Remember, it is by faith we believe the Bible. We can only know what the Bible says if He truly preserved His words in a language that bares some kind of semblance to a language that exists today. English is the world language and it makes sense that God would use one of the most popular languages to preserve His Word in. That is what the Great Commission is all about. Not many in the world speak Hebrew and Greek today, unlike English. So when you hear, “Seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read” in Isaiah 34:16 this would be an actual book that we can read and understand. English is taught in many countries all over the world as a secondary language.

I've never used the West and Horcott versions. I read the SBL. It also has alternate readings at the bottom of each page.

Uh, according to this site, the SBL was initially based on the Westcott and Hort text.

Alan Bunning says of the SBL:

”The 2010 Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) text was prepared by Michael Holmes in order to produce a modern eclectic text made freely available to the public. The SBL text was initially based off of the 1885 Westcott and Hort text which was brought up to modern orthographic standards. This text was then compared with the 2005 Byzantine Textform text, the 1857 Tregelles text, and the Greek text that was used by the New International Version (NIV). The editor generally accepted the reading wherever all four of these texts were in agreement and then selected between variants whenever the texts differed. [Copyright © 2010 Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software.]”

Source:
http://www.biblesupport.com/topic/8...testament-textual-variants-visual-comparison/

So the more correct Bible did not exist until 2010?
That’s rather silly.

You can talk about the original languages all you want. But if you don't actually read Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, you don't begin to understand what is behind translating. I spent 2 solid years studying Seminary Greek, memorized down to 5 occurrences of a word in the NT. I can read it, I understand translation issues. The biggest translation issues with the KJV, besides the corrupted manuscripts, is that it is translated into a language we don't speak today! I don't read 16th century English and the KJV is impossible to read. I won't plough through unreadable 16th century grammar and archaic and obsolete words. I have read almost every modern version, including Greek & Hebrew. I don't understand 16th century English. And if I, with all my education and training in languages and linguistics don't understand it, how can anyone else? That's not vanity. That's just seeing all the theological errors that constantly come out of the KJV by people that don't know how to read it! People that think they are reading the inspired word of God and literally do not understand the language it is written in.

Listen to yourself. You are complaining about how 1600s English is more difficult to read and understand than Hebrew and Greek. If I had a page of Hebrew and Greek, most people would not know how to read it. But if it was the KJV, they could read it.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There are reasons for this difference that are referenced in the bible's. There could be many different reasons for this difference, and we live in a time where we are able to research and find out the reasons for these things, and jumping to the conclusion about this the way you do because of a preconceived dogmatic view is not the proper way to handle it. One possible reason for this difference has to do with Hebrew and Greek, in the Hebrew these could represent the 70 countries as they're names, while the Greeks recognized 72 country names. When you look at all the information available this stops being a matter of Satan trying to corrupts God's word, and more a matter of gained knowledge in the field.

Look I have listened to the arguments for KJV only, I'm not ignorant to how insane it seems when presented as "Satan taking over God's word". I get it, there is defiantly some questions to ask. It's after researching the reasons for each of these different choice' of words for the other translations one by one, and reasons behind the KJV's choices as well, that I felt the case became weaker and weaker. Angela posted an example of what I mean right above us in an awesome video. The reasoning for the example you just gave about the 70 or 72, is not God demeaning or a evil plot, it's not hard to grasp when you look into it.

The thing is though, when you've already divided the body over this dogmatic belief, presupposing this and presenting the KJV in the same fashion the Muslim views the Quran, and it creates all kinds of completely unproductive side issues that honestly divide us from the jump for no good reason. Not to mention I still haven't seen the coming "perfect version of His word" demonstrated in His word yet.

Why wouldn’t you believe Satan is in the Word of God corrupting business?
He did it back in the Garden.
He said, “Yea, hath God said….?” (Genesis 3:1).
Yet, you got footnotes in your Modern Bibles hissing in the background as you read your Bible making you to doubt certain parts of the Bible. It is foolish to think Satan is not working today to destroy God’s words.
He did so in the beginning. Why not now? Just because you say he is not doing it now? How do you know?
In fact, we can see the corruptions in Modern Bibles and I shown you this. But there was no reply back.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I do not and will not trust the Byzantine manuscripts. I've read too much about how badly copied they are. There are so many mistakes from generation to generation.

Angela, this is TOTAL NONSENSE on your part, because all you have done is swallowed the lies of Westcott and Hort (as have many others). Christians are supposed to present the truth, not lies invented with a specific agenda (hatred of the Textus Receptus and the KJB).

1. W&H invented an elaborate (and baseless) theory to disparage the traditional or Byzantine text. They falsely claimed that it had gone through two "rescensions" (or corruptions). This was to try and establish the supremacy of Codex Vaticanus (B).

2. F.H.A. Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century. In fact he wrote the textbook on textual criticism. It is titled "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament". In that book he did two things to refute the lies of W & H: (1) he showed that their theory had NO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION and (2) that Codex Vaticanus must NOT be taken as the supreme manuscript of all manuscripts, since it was corrupted. "Dr. Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation".*
[The footnote refers to Burgon's Revision Revised. *"See Burgon's ' The Revision Revised,' pp. 271-288."] Also "no one writer seems conscious that any modification either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular translation was made in or before his time." That disproves your allegation that the Byzantine text was "badly copied" and had "so many mistakes".

3, He was also on the revision committee on which W&H were members. He strongly opposed their their theory and their Critical Text, but was ignored.

4. Dean John William Burgon was another conservative textual scholar, who was his contemporary, and whom he respected. Burgon also not only strongly opposed W&H but also EXPOSED the corruption of Vaticanus, Sinaticus (Aleph), and the small number of manuscripts on which the Critical Text is based. He too was ignored. He wrote The Revision Revised, and Scrivener noted that Burgon had thoroughly demolished the theory of W&H in that book. Why don't you purchase a copy and read it for yourself?

5. Instead of giving heed to these diligent textual scholars, the revision committee was swayed by W&H and thus the Revised Version (1881) was created. Every modern version has followed this corrupted translation. And all modern textual critics have simply gone along with the nonsense of W&H and ignored Scrivener, Burgon, and others who actually and personally examined the manuscripts. .

6. Bruce Metzger was probably the most influential textual critic of recent times. This is what he said: "Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/are_modern_versions_westcott_hort.html

And this is why all modern bible versions follow W&H. And so do you.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Angela, this is TOTAL NONSENSE on your part, because all you have done is swallowed the lies of Westcott and Hort (as have many others). Christians are supposed to present the truth, not lies invented with a specific agenda (hatred of the Textus Receptus and the KJB).

1. W&H invented an elaborate (and baseless) theory to disparage the traditional or Byzantine text. They falsely claimed that it had gone through two "rescensions" (or corruptions). This was to try and establish the supremacy of Codex Vaticanus (B).

2. F.H.A. Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century. In fact he wrote the textbook on textual criticism. It is titled "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament". In that book he did two things to refute the lies of W & H: (1) he showed that their theory had NO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION and (2) that Codex Vaticanus must NOT be taken as the supreme manuscript of all manuscripts, since it was corrupted. "Dr. Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation".*
[The footnote refers to Burgon's Revision Revised. *"See Burgon's ' The Revision Revised,' pp. 271-288."] Also "no one writer seems conscious that any modification either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular translation was made in or before his time." That disproves your allegation that the Byzantine text was "badly copied" and had "so many mistakes".

3, He was also on the revision committee on which W&H were members. He strongly opposed their their theory and their Critical Text, but was ignored.

4. Dean John William Burgon was another conservative textual scholar, who was his contemporary, and whom he respected. Burgon also not only strongly opposed W&H but also EXPOSED the corruption of Vaticanus, Sinaticus (Aleph), and the small number of manuscripts on which the Critical Text is based. He too was ignored. He wrote The Revision Revised, and Scrivener noted that Burgon had thoroughly demolished the theory of W&H in that book. Why don't you purchase a copy and read it for yourself?

5. Instead of giving heed to these diligent textual scholars, the revision committee was swayed by W&H and thus the Revised Version (1881) was created. Every modern version has followed this corrupted translation. And all modern textual critics have simply gone along with the nonsense of W&H and ignored Scrivener, Burgon, and others who actually and personally examined the manuscripts. .

6. Bruce Metzger was probably the most influential textual critic of recent times. This is what he said: "Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/are_modern_versions_westcott_hort.html

And this is why all modern bible versions follow W&H. And so do you.

Well said.

She should also read the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort.
Both of these books written each by their sons.

She should also check out the commentaries of Westcott and Hort and how they attack the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the substitutionary atonement.etcetera.

She should also know this, as well.

Vance Smith said:

“Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere presented to us as God, but simply as the Christ... ‘There is one God, the Father,’ and ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ;’ but these are not in any sense one being or one nature” (Smith, The Bible and Its Theology, p. 299).

Vance Smith was on the Revised Version committee:

When an attempt was made to have Smith removed from the ERV translation committee, Westcott, Hort, Stanley, and Thirlwall stood by him and threatened that they would resign if Smith were removed. The sordid story is given by A.G. Hobbs in the foreword to the Centennial Edition of Burgon’s Revision Revised: “[Smith’s participation in the communion service] led to a public protest signed by ‘some thousands of the Clergy.’ The Upper House passed a Resolution that ‘no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which was committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.’ This Resolution was also passed by the Lower House. And still they could not get this non-believer off the Committee. Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirlwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages!” (A.G. Hobbs, Foreword, The Revision Revised Centennial Edition).

She can check out these books for herself and connect the dots.

But the Revision Revised is surely a greater witness.

@Angela53510

Please take note of these books to check out on your own time.
This is not some hill billy KJV-Only sources or articles or propaganda, but actual books that will help you to see what is really going on. Do you not take your teacher in what he says on this subject. Read the books for yourself.

 

[Lanolin]

I think Angela has made up her mind KJV readers are a bunch of ignoramuses, since shes done her masters degree in the trinity without it.

It has been interesting to read how anti-KJV some people are. Let it go, if you cant handle it then there are childrens bibles you can read and other translations...not in english.

I think the author of the Shack tried to rewrite the Bible at one stage as well, to make it easier to understand, and maybe to sell more copies, he made God a woman.

 

[GaryA]

There is an Old Testament reference that ties into the story that tells us what Jesus was writing on the ground.

Please elaborate...

 

[7thMoon]

Angela53510 said:
I do not and will not trust the Byzantine manuscripts. I've read too much about how badly copied they are. There are so many mistakes from generation to generation.

But the Byzantine manuscripts are better, and contrary to popular are more like the Textus Receptii than Von Soden's majority text.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There is an Old Testament reference that ties into the story that tells us what Jesus was writing on the ground.

Please elaborate...

My pleasure. Here is my old write-up on that.

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?

John 4:14 says,

"...the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."​

John 7:37-39 says,

37 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.​

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.​

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"​

This relates. We can know what Jesus was writing in the ground when the Jews tested him in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery by looking at other Scripture. By Scripture, we see a reference to the LORD [Jesus], the fountain of living waters [the Holy Spirit].

Jeremiah 17:13 says,

"O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD [i.e. Jesus], the fountain of living waters [i.e. the Holy Ghost]."​

Note 1: The words in brackets in light blue (above) are my commentary on the text.

Note 2: Words in bright red are references to the Holy Spirit. Words in green are about the Tree of Life, the door (wood, tree), who is Jesus.

Note 3: In the words in the above verse, you will notice that they (the Jews) were accusing Jesus in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery, their names were written down on the earth. This is what Jesus was writing on the Earth. Jesus was writing down the names of those who had forsaken the Lord. I highlighted the words in purple above in Jeremiah to show that their names are written in the earth as we behold in the scene in John 8.

Note 4: We tie this together because the words, "the LORD, the fountain of living waters" in Jeremiah 17:13 are tied to John 7:38 which says, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Again, John 7:38 says,

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."​

​

Here is the scene with Jesus writing on the ground with the Jews concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery:

John 8:4-6 says,

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.​

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?​

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and​

with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. "​

What is interesting is that in the very previous chapter (John 7), we are told that anyone who believes in Jesus out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Yet, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is what these Jews rejected and their names were written in the ground because they forsaken the Lord.

So yes. It's true. John 8 belongs in our Bible.
The testimony of the whole of Scripture confirms this.
In other words, folks should allow for God's Word to change them, and they should not try and change God's Word.

 

[GaryA]

Thanks.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Thanks.

You’re most welcome.
When I discovered that, I was so excited.
I always wanted to know what Jesus was writing on the ground and the Bible tells us.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

My pleasure. Here is my old write-up on that.

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?

John 4:14 says,

"...the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."​

John 7:37-39 says,

37 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.​

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.​

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"​

This relates. We can know what Jesus was writing in the ground when the Jews tested him in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery by looking at other Scripture. By Scripture, we see a reference to the LORD [Jesus], the fountain of living waters [the Holy Spirit].

Jeremiah 17:13 says,

"O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD [i.e. Jesus], the fountain of living waters [i.e. the Holy Ghost]."​

Note 1: The words in brackets in light blue (above) are my commentary on the text.

Note 2: Words in bright red are references to the Holy Spirit. Words in green are about the Tree of Life, the door (wood, tree), who is Jesus.

Note 3: In the words in the above verse, you will notice that they (the Jews) were accusing Jesus in regards to the woman caught in the act of adultery, their names were written down on the earth. This is what Jesus was writing on the Earth. Jesus was writing down the names of those who had forsaken the Lord. I highlighted the words in purple above in Jeremiah to show that their names are written in the earth as we behold in the scene in John 8.

Note 4: We tie this together because the words, "the LORD, the fountain of living waters" in Jeremiah 17:13 are tied to John 7:38 which says, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Again, John 7:38 says,

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."​

​

Here is the scene with Jesus writing on the ground with the Jews concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery:

John 8:4-6 says,

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.​

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?​

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and​

with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. "​

What is interesting is that in the very previous chapter (John 7), we are told that anyone who believes in Jesus out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Yet, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is what these Jews rejected and their names were written in the ground because they forsaken the Lord.

So yes. It's true. John 8 belongs in our Bible.
The testimony of the whole of Scripture confirms this.
In other words, folks should allow for God's Word to change them, and they should not try and change God's Word.

Correction: Meant to say all of John 8 belongs in our Bible. I should have added the words “all of” to refer to how the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8 should be in our Bible.

 

[Lanolin]

What, was some of John 8 cut from other Bibles?
I know some omit words like 'this kind only goeth out by prayer and fasting' some Bibles omit the word 'fasting' which is essential but I had not heard of Bibles that omit entire passages! So the woman caught in adultery and nearly stoned while the men look guiltily on is NOT in some bible versions?!

So here we have two very important passages, one dealing with women and mens atttudes to adultery, the woman forgiven with compassion and the men equally guilty but not stoned...and another about the importance of prayer AND fasting when casting out demons.

Then we wonder why adultery and obesity, indulgence and addiction are rife in some churches..

Acts 8:37 is also essential that seems to be cut from many American Bibles.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8?

Because he didn't have a scroll, quill, and ink handy!

 

[Lanolin]

Because he didn't have a scroll, quill, and ink handy!

They asking WHAT did Jesus write on the ground not WHY

 

[Stan_the_Man]

They asking WHAT did Jesus write on the ground not WHY

God's Word does not tells us WHAT He wrote in the ground.

So it's a moot point since it can't be proven.

 

[Angela53510]

Give me a break! Quoting Strong's? And the very weak Thayer's? An English to English Concordance, with a short gloss in the back? Have you ever looked at BDAG? That's the top Greek Lexicon. Or BDB? That's the top Hebrew Lexicon. BDAG has pages and pages for one word. Plus where the different meanings are found for each word. It starts with the Greek word, then translates it to English. It has been updated many times, as the Knowledge of Greek has improved. Same with BDB and Hebrew. Strong's has been frozen in time for well over a century!

People use Strong's, which is based on the words in the KJV to conform their KJV bias. Don't think I will even look at your shoddy scholarship.

But as far as monogenes μονογενῆ is concerned, Strong's & the KJV got that wrong! The KJV follows the Latin Vulgate (Roman Catholic) unigenitus and the Greek which was thought to be monos (only) and gennao (beget), translated as only begotten.

This has caused great misunderstanding, since God the Son did not have an origin, and was not created by God. Jesus Christ is an eternal being. Rather, monogenes μονογενῆ, is best understood to be from monos (only) and genas (kind) or Latin - genus. This view is consistent with John's 5 uses of the word, and support for this translation is also found in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac was called monogenes. Isaac is not Abraham's only begotten son, but he was the only one of his kind - the son of the promise.

In Old Latin translation, monogenes was translated as Unicus, from where we get our word "unique." That is what is meant be monogenes μονογενῆ, in John's writings in John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9.

Jesus is God's unique Son in that His essential nature is the same as the Father's. Begotten does not mean same nature as God, merely that he was conceived by God. That is heresy!

It was a bad translational mistake by the KJV committee, in that rather than translating genes, as kind, they chose to turn that final part of the Greek word as gennao. And so the error has been handed down for over 400 years. Begotten wasn't even a word, before the KJV committee made it up. We have advanced so far in our study of Koine Greek in 400 years. It's really sad when people hold onto their rigid ancient Bible mistakes, instead of using the proper Greek tools, and realizing that "begotten" is a mistake that needs to be corrected, as it has been!

 

[Angela53510]

.

Where to start?? Where to start??
First, I never went to Bible College. I went to seminary for 7 years where I got straight As and top student in Greek. I also went to a theological institute and studied theology for a few years till my RA hit my hand, and I couldn't type. Then Long COVID finished me off. I took second year Greek online from Bill Mounce, one of the top Greek scholars in the world, whose father was also a Greek scholar, and started teaching him Greek at age 3. He spoke classical Greek, and modern Greek and would often share interesting things about the changes in Greek over thousands of years, or things that stayed the same. He told every student to learn modern Greek, and his text books were full of modern Greek. I did work on modern Greek for a while, but ended up going back to Ukrainian, which was the language of my grandparents. But I can often read Greek on a map, based on Koine Greek. Plus, I am in a group on FB that examines the original languages, with many professors, and they always tell people to learn modern Greek. I don't know where you got your info, you probably have never met a Greek scholar, and are just quoting one of your KJV Only websites. Dr Mounce said everyone he worked with on translation committees all knew modern Greek, plus they talked to each other in it. So, more false info!

As far as modern manuscripts being supervised by the Catholic Church, Erasmus was a Catholic priest. That is the basis of the KJV text. Better look into that!

Another error you have made, is I came to my conclusions about the Byzantine text by looking at and reading numerous examples of the texts. And all the copyist errors, including a one letter difference, which makes it a different word. How dare you tell me I read only scholars? Besides which, not all scholars say the same things. If I am digging deep into a topic I will read up to 50 sources on the issue. Then I go back to the Bible, to decide my preference in the matter. Always being open to consider new information as new manuscripts are found. For example, Daniel Wallace, the author of the top second year Greek grammar got permission from the Greek gov't and Orthodox churches to photograph every single manuscript in their churches & libraries, in Greece and Istanbul. He was discovering amazing things. It will be interesting to read some of his conclusions regarding the material, But then, you've never met an actual Greek scholar or looked at manuscripts, especially over generations of copying, to see how the mistakes and the margin notes get copied into the next generation of manuscripts. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes. But I also trust my Greek professors. Bill Mounce was phenomenal. A master teacher. He never presumed upon his knowledge but put so much preparation into each lesson. And such a depth of knowledge. But so humble, without knowing it. He told us a story about a brilliant Bible scholar and teacher, and wondered how he could even consider himself a scholar compared to this man.

You obviously have never stepped into any post -secondary institute to have such an ignorant understanding of scholarship, and the time, effort and intelligence and hard work and dedication it takes to earn those "fancy" degrees. Real degrees take constant and dedicated work. Many of my fellow students were pastors, seeking to learn more about God. One young man was a missionary, living in a jungle in southern Mexico, and having to drive to a town for the online classes. He also had 4 children, and was brillant. He also almost died of COVID, and God touched him and he was instantly healed! A Southern Baptist.

You have an anti-education attitude. You put down anyone who knows more than you, because of the huge effort they made to study themselves approved. That is from the KJV! Funny how so many put down higher education for Christians, when there are so many excellent conservative seminaries & theological schools. Everyone I knew felt called by God to go to seminary including me. I disobeyed God, cause it wouldn't give me any increments for teaching in public school, and I thought women couldn't be preachers. Not that I wanted to be a preacher. Then I got really sick. When I finally found good meds my, God called me again. I never waivered, and when the going got rough, that call remained in my heart.

There are many reasons the Jonannine Comma should not be there. Including that the earliest manuscripts don't have it. The only reason it is in the KJV, is that the Catholic Church demanded Erasmus leave it in for theology's sake, even though he could find no evidence of its existence. But he left it in to get the Imprimateur's stamp of approval, and the KJV used his translation as the basis of their work. You know, the Roman Catholic priest. As far as witnessing about the Trinity, to whom would that be done? Unsaved people need to hear the gospel. Yes there are some Christian cults that don't believe in the a Trinity. We have a friend who was United Pentecostal. Oneness, no Trinity. He even reads only the KJV. Having that verse there has done not a thing to convince him of the Trinity. I've argued other verses with him, but "God told me!" God tells him all kinds of things that are in conflict with his KJV Bible, but he is stubborn and his theology is stuck. I'd much rather use other texts to argue the Trinity, cause almost everyone knows 1 John 5:7 is spurious. Better to show the Trinity in other places!

And yes, there are definitively liberal, progressive scholars who attack the Bible & doctrine. I've personally never met any of them, my seminary was very conservative. We had people from many denominations attend, even charismatics. The seminary even let them take an extra theology course from their own denomination. Like a Lutheran student studied with a former Lutheran professor. Two Mennonite students studied with a Mennonite scholar. Plus we had many different Baptist Conferences in our seminary. One, because his Baptist denomination had become so liberal, he left it and wouldn't go to their seminary, which was a few blocks from his home, but travelled across the province to get a quality conservative education at our seminary. The seminary had an excellent reputation!

So, just because there are bad professors in seminaries that have gone astray, doesn't mean they all have. Instead of listing the negative, look into how many conservative scholars there are, from a variety of denominations, and independent ones. My theological institute was not affiliated with any denominations, and we all got along so well, and I learned so much from excellent professors who believed every word of the Bible.

Anyway, you definitely suffer from hearsay and a lot of lies that have been fed to you. You've never met a conservative scholar or been to a conservative seminary. That's ok, you're not an academic! But stop criticizing things you don't know anything about. You accuse me of learning from professors, and I freely admit I have. Then turn around and spout internet garbage, without even quoting the source. Maybe next time, I'll put some of your internet stuff into a Google search, to find where all this KJV Only nonsense comes from. Read the KJV if you want, but don't tell others it is the best and true Bible, because it isn't!

 

[Niki7]

Umm, I just only don't think those whom you refer to as 'actual linguists' do not agree with the 'old age' KJB. I think this is not a good argument when it comes to the Bible version issue. My proposal is that these newer versions so far as the text concerned Acts 9 did not satisfy what the word sorcery means. The age-old KJ is correct in this instance. Anyway, I would not be willing to insist on you, just giving facts.

I said they don't agree with the KJ only rendition of scripture. I did not say what you seem to think I said. If you cannot even understand such a simple thing, you simply illustrate why no one should go along with your opinions.