Thank you for your kind words. Glory to God.
I read from an Orthodox study Bible, it's half St. Athanasius septuagint (OT) and NKJV (NT).
And when I read and do lesson with my children, I read from a standard NKJV.
Any here aware of KJVO views?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
I read from an Orthodox study Bible, it's half St. Athanasius septuagint (OT) and NKJV (NT).
And when I read and do lesson with my children, I read from a standard NKJV.
I could never ne a member of a KJVO church , as their basic position would be always to be viewing any other translation as either being error filled at best, or all out satanic inspired at worst. Do think the Nkjv is a fine translation, and just wish those Kjvo who want the TR Greek text and tradition of the Kjv would all change over to the Nkjv itself
KJVO people had gone out of the way to slander those who do not support their position, even accusing the CT believers to be satanic influencedI respectfully have to disagree with you BibleLover.
Many of not most scholars consider that a myth.
First, Constantin Tischendorf never said he found the text in a garbage can. He stated he saw “a large and wide basket full of old parchments.”
Second, Tischendorf wanted the codex and wanted to make himself look like the savior of the manuscript. The fact is he took it (some would say stole it) with the promise he would return it back to Saint Catherine’s monastery.
Third, biblical scholar and curator of manuscripts Professor J. Rendel Harris writing 50 years after the event:
View attachment 13149
View attachment 13150
The Expositor
books.google.com
Fourth, see Dr. Dan Wallace.
Fifth, James Snapp has a post on this topic as well as other sources.
James White and Codex Sinaiticus
www.thetextofthegospels.com
This is true of the vast majority of all manuscripts. Unless there is a colophon in the text we have no idea who copied the it or where it was done. However, we do know that it was found at Saint Catherine’s monastery. Moreover as as recently 1975 more pages of the codex have been discovered at the monastery.
The Sinai Palimpsests Project | Sinai Palimpsests Project
sinaipalimpsests.org
First, there is no way Vaticanus could have been handled by Origen. Vaticanus is dated to the 4th century. Origen died in the middle of the 3rd century (ca. 253).
Second, there was no coincided. Codex Vaticanus was in the Vatican Library appearing in its catalogs from 1475 and 1481. Erasmus engaged in correspondence with two individuals (i.e. Paolo Bombace and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda) who had access to the Vatican Library and to the codex.
The "missing passages" in Modern translations are not erasing what was their in the originals, its more like saying the Kjv translators added them to the originals
Good morning, YeshuaFan;
"The modern translations are not erasing what was there in the originals? It's like saying the KJV translators added them to the originals."
Are you saying modern translations didn't omit what was in the original verses? And the KJV translators added them to the originals?!?
I'm a little lost, brother. Please elaborate?
God bless you and thank you.
Bob
Saying that KJVP assume that the TR record was the most accurate Greek text to the originals, so when the Modern editions that used the CT of the Greek "omitted" some, that would be due to the scholars saying that the TR and the Kjv are added into translations wording not found in the Originals
I agree. Tischendorf recounts how the librarian allowed him to take a selection of the leaves which he later presented to European scholars. The question is why would the haver a problem with him taking the leaves since the monks, according Tischendorf, has no idea what they really had. The fact is the monks at Saint Catherine’s monastery have always wanted the text back and still do.
As one sources points out:
"Tischendorf’s story portrays the monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery as ignorant of the value of the manuscript, casting himself as the savior who intervened to prevent its destruction. He asserts that the librarian informed him that two similar baskets of manuscripts had already been burned, underscoring the urgency and necessity of his actions. This dramatic framing not only heightened the significance of the discovery but also provided a convenient justification for Tischendorf’s subsequent removal of the manuscript from the monastery."
"Tischendorf’s narrative fits into a broader pattern of 19th-century European attitudes toward Eastern custodians of ancient artifacts. These attitudes, often rooted in colonialist assumptions, portrayed local caretakers as incompetent or ignorant, thereby legitimizing the acquisition of artifacts by Western scholars and institutions. Tischendorf’s account aligns closely with this trope, raising further suspicion about its authenticity."
i use kjv it causes me to research the words for better understanding . the only real change is us
Hello YeshuaFan;
I don't spend time on such issues but to be truthful I am aware many Churches swear by their choice of pew Bible and have used them for years.
In your experience a KJVO Church.
A Presbyterian Church in our community celebrated it's 75th anniversary and has used the NIV for decades as their pew Bible.
God bless you, YeshuaFan.
Bob
A good reason to use KJV is it's copyright free. You can publish your own or copy from it freely.
I have heard this argument.... I love the NKJV.... and I also like the Amplified because I like WORDS.
Surprisingly the King James uses the word "feathers"... and the American Standard uses the word "pinions"
Personally... I think PINIONS sounds WAY COOL.
Surprisingly the King James uses the word "feathers"... and the American Standard uses the word "pinions"
Personally... I think PINIONS sounds WAY COOL.
There also have been published books that aid in updating the archaic terms used in the Kjv
We also use by default the Niv version, but all mmebers free to use whatever bible version they like to use, which would NOT be tolerated at a KJVO church
In my KJVO congregation members are free to use any version they wish in the pews, and if they need to use a KJV to follow the sermon, KJV pew Bibles are in every pew. What they cannot do is use a different version to preach from the pulpit. The KJV is the standard version so that everyone is always on the same sheet of music to minimize message confusion and avoid the Babel syndrome.
Your church does the same basic thing using the NIV rather than the KJV.
Last edited:
Are they allowed to use other translation then Kjv for bible studies and personal reading then?
Of course! In my personal study, I use a number of English translations plus the Luther and 2 other German translations. For my devotions and for reading along in the pew at church I use the NKJV. Everyone else, too, is free to choose their own translation for everything, except preaching from the pulpit or teaching a Sunday School class.
Aw, Awe, but that's your o'pinion.Surprisingly the King James uses the word "feathers"... and the American Standard uses the word "pinions"
Personally... I think PINIONS sounds WAY COOL.
YEP.... HA
i am not going to go out buy a new version of Bible just be popular.. some versions i can deal with NIV i can not . at the church i pastor i do not tell them what version to use . the old timers before me used kjv and seen great things... imo the church is trying to be to cool to popular.. so we water everything down ..
i have heard the excuse kjv is to hard to understand.. i use to know a pastor who 6th grade education.. that preached using kjv
Good morning, forgiven;
"Going out and buying a new version of the Bible just to be popular" lol!
I do keep my old KJV since the 1990s as a cross reference and it still works. I also never suggested what translations my congregation should use.
Except for a couple of translations that were barely published from the Jesus Movement in 1970. Since then I believe they're out of circulation. I forgot the name of these Bibles but I believe crossnote remembered in another thread.
God bless you.
Bob