Copypasta for Zig Forums and other forums

Well here's my stance, and I think I speak for most:
KJV-onlyism is a misnomer, and rather we are strictly anti-postKJV Bibles. There are an unbelievable amount of discrepancies in the other leading Bible(NIV, ESV, Douay Rheims), however I'm sure the Tyndale Bible is great and obviously the actual Textus Receptus is too.

The problem is when an user, or even a publisher, believes that a group(and sometimes even an individual) thinks they are qualified to edit the King James. The Scolfield controversy is one such example, wherein an elite group of "jews" comissioned an individual to create a version with an agenda: a pro-Isrsel Bible.

The 54 scholars who were commissioned for the 1611 KJV were some of Europe's best. We don't know much about them, but we do know a some:
-Lancelot Andrews spoke 21 languages fluently, 5 of which were dead.
-One editor claimed to have read every Greek word in the known world.
-The 54 were split into several groups and over a period of 7 years, each verse was translated and finalized, then proofread by each group. It was extremely professional and systematic and it is folly to think the authors of the NIV were as qualified/meticulous.

These are the best videos I have found on the subject of KJV-onlyism:
youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU

youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ

youtu.be/HeK3-XTW1Pc

Disregard that 1st sentence.

Yeah pretty much it's just that you should take the KJV as the definitive version and if you find something wrong with some other translation that contradicts it then you know not to use it. So far every modern translation I've ever seen has massive differences and contradicts the KJV, so therefore I never use them. Then a few people get butthurt and accuse me of all kinds of things I never believed.

I would say my problem with this stuff is kinda like my problem with tradcaths and the Latin mass. It just seems to me like someone could go along translating from the same original texts as the KJV, maybe even essentially translating the KJV, into a more modern form of English. They could make all the same assumptions while translating it but simply use words more in use rather that words that are used less often, but have the same meaning. But if this were done it would create a million youtube videos in which people would take the most uncharitable view of it possible using weird definitions of words that everyone knows weren't the intended meaning to show how this new pseudo-translation is actually a masonic jesuit new world order """";"bible"".
Pretty sure I've already seen the Anderson ones, maybe I'll watch the Hovind one. I'm more accepting of the KJV than I used to be, mostly from distancing it in my mind from the KJV only groups and reading it fresh, but I don't get the idea that there can't be a good translation now it days, as opposed to that their likely will not be

Also the reason for this is because it says the same thing as the received text, the original language words which we always had.

Agreed. Even though those links in OP aren't KJV, they are still a great resource for getting an understanding IMO. And unless I missed something, it doesn't contradict it at all.

The Hovind one is only 15 minutes. Also pic related.

Attached: 5D990BA6-2E69-4526-9779-5A172919E6DE.jpg (700x962, 905.27K)

The KJV is a subverted Bible. Without Maccabees, zionism is a logical conclusion of the Bible. The first Rheims is interesting and the OSB seems better than most modern English Bibles. The best Bible that's conveniently universal and easy to find on mobile is the RV with apocrypha imo. But nothing beats the interlinear.

1 John 2:23, 2 John 1:9-11, Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, Revelation 2:9 & 3:9
Just stop.

Based off the Alexandrian scrolls. And excellent translation of a false gospel. I believe it is understood that these Alexandrians were the same who Stephen preached against(and was stoned by) in Actd 6.

Not the KJV.

Sure thing, pal. Pic related.

Attached: have-a-look-version-of-the-bible-verse-no-kjv-14006107.png (500x654, 126.23K)

Why is servant wrong for Παῖδά?

What basis are you coming to this discrepancy? Do you speak Greek? Kalimera. Maybe this is a logical fallacy, but among the 54 editors and translators of the King James were numerous Greek scholars and others fluent in the language. Why would they make such a careless mistake that a Jehovah's Witness could refute their concensus with a penstroke?

All of those verses are in my RSV though?

As footnotes or with footnotes, correct? Remember: the 1st thing the devil did was not kill, or maim, but cast doubt on God's Word.

The RSV removes the second sentence of Romans 11:6 and doesn't even leave a footnote.

The RSV changes "I must work" to "We must work" in John 9:4 and doesn't even leave a footnote to mark it.

The RSV removes the words "Jesus Christ" from 1 Corinthians 16:22 and doesn't leave a footnote.

The RSV removes "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" in 1 Peter 4:14, and doesn't leave a footnote.

Well tbh, i just google image searched KJV vs RSV and posted that.

Attached: Screenshot_20180723-064358_Chrome.jpg (1080x2220, 848.37K)

This is one thing that I'm kinda confused about. Why is it that when KJVers say recieved or always used it's always applying to what was used in Europe and maybe where ever Europe had the most contact with. If Ethiopians gathered all their earliest texts and made a definitive translation and stuck to the same arguement I can't imagine KJV types being cool with that, nor could I imagine them being level headed if any other group did that from the most ancient Slavonic Bibles or Syriac Bibles or anything else

1. Κύριε as sir, not my favorite
2. προσεκύνει as kneeling down, not my favorite but it also seems like KJV types usually try to oversimplify proskyneo and its meanings
3. προσκυνοῦσα as kneeling down, basically just the last problem reused
4. τῆς δυνάμεως as of power, I really don't care that much, if anything the NKJV sounds stronger here, not that we should go off of what sounds stronger, we should go off of the most accurate translationg
5. a lamb vs. the lamb, if anything NKJV sounds stronger here, again just talking about what sounds stronger because the title given to that section
6. a son vs. the Son, maybe not my favorite but doesn't look like they're stretching the text much
7. both of vs. and of and of, I like the KJV here more as it seems to translate it as it is said, but I don't see how this demotes Christ, if anything it adds a false argument for the Trinity, which isn't need as the Trinity is already true not needing false evidences
8. Διδάσκαλε as teacher, seems like the KJV does this a few times elsewhere
9. Διδάσκαλε as teacher, literally the same point twice
10. lack of he shall appear, less interested in this, it seems like a difficult phrase is just delt with slightly differently
11. καθηγητής as teacher, maybe not my favorite, but also not incredibly worrying. Maybe I just don't get it but I don't see how teacher is such a bad thing as this meme seemingly implies, but maybe I connect it too much with Jesus being the teacher of the new covenant as Moses was of the old
12. καθηγηταί and καθηγητὴς as teachers and teacher, same point as the last reused essentially
1. παῖδα as servant, maybe a problem, but it seems the KJV translates this as servant elsewhere so I'm confused why this is such a problem
2.παῖδα as servant, same point stated again, it seems like this is just one word that can mean a servant or a child, and in this case Jesus is both Son and servant and the translators choose different meanings both from the same word
3. παῖδά as servant, how many times can we use this
4. παιδός as servant, apparently at least four times
5. πάσης κτίσεως as over all creation, really don't have a problem here, he is the firstborn of every creature, but of all creation seems like a valid translation
6. the He is obviously Jesus, come on
7. Ἰησοῦς as Joshua, I'm more of a fan of always translating everything as Jesus and people learning that Jesus and Joshua are the same name, but this literally isn't a problem
8. Ἰησοῦ as Joshua, round two again
9. weird instance, probably favor the KJV, but again not really demoting Christ so I don't know why it's there, really most of these aren't demoting Christ unless you decide they are
1. Divine Nature vs. Godhead, literally the same thing
2. not much of a problem, especially with the monarchy of the Father
3.not much of a problem, especially since Christ's statements elsewhere make it clear it isn't a problem for Christ, who is God, to call the Father His God
4. same problems as above really, just a problem when assumptions are made
5. παράκλητον as helper, This
6. παράκλητον as helper, is a
7. παράκλητον as helper, fake
8. παράκλητον as helper, problem
Kinda hoped to do them all but I'm getting over it

What the heck does that bottom text say?
Anyways, people who "remove" these verses will literally give the same defense of we're just staying faithful to the oldest texts preserved for us
boring

It really seems like you're oversimplifying issues and being over reliant on a collection of reformed scholars

Attached: maths.png (571x673, 309.13K)

To be fair those changes are because the KJV translation is in error, not the RSV. Remember that the people who translated the KJV only had 9 manuscripts, we have hundreds today that allow us to make far better judgements on what is original and what are later additions. The KJV still has the comma johennium in 1 John 5:7 for example and we know for a fact that was a later addition

But we know that 1 John 5:7 is really because it was in those super special manuscript, checkmate jesuit

Yea, that needs to be cropped out…haha
Well I have to ask: do you speak or read Greek? This is an important question.

Watch this 15 minute Kent Hovind video OR just fast forward to 7:25-10:00
youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU

Because it's still in the original languages. We still have the original words preserved through God's will today.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

What?

Actually they had access to manuscripts that today are no longer around. Fortunately we have the work of several top scholars who put together the various TR publications as did the KJV translators. The KJV translators had access to everything at the time. If God's word was not in the world at that time but buried in a monastery somewhere that nobody knew about, then the prophecy about God's word was not fulfilled.

They said the same of 1 John 2:23b at the time in 1611, it turned out later that it is very well supported.

Sorry I meant the KJV translators had access to it, not that they put those together themselves.

Thanks brother.

everybody as some Greek speaking dude on their team and virtue signalling about it doesn't help anyone
The Hovind video might be a new video for people that are incredibly new to this, but it's not all that deep. I would love to see what he's talking about with the Alexandrians, from what I've seen about Origin he's oversimplifying this in an incredible way. Also Egypt = bad is retarded as is the trashcan manuscript meme, a blatant lie
I don't get how KJVers hate the ancient manuscripts so much, I half expect them to feces-post about how THESE ARE PRESERVED and whatnot

NOT PRESERVED!!! RRRREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Don't worry, they made copies for us.

What? So just say: "No, i don't speak or read Greek." I won't say anything else, I'll let that speak for itself in the context of your lengthy review you posted earlier.
The video or the topic isn't deep? I disagree with either statement.
What does this mean?
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
Just because something survived doesn't mean it's correct. vaticanus sinaiticus and the Textus Receptus contradict each other.

There isn't a single manuscript that completely agrees with the Textus Receptus

It's simply this:
Erasmus was arguably the smarter man who ever lived. His work was then reviewed by 54 geniuses under comission of King.

And the other argument implies that God concealed His Word from us for centuries.

Smartest*

He acts like the situation in Alexandria is really simple. Origen was very flawed, but four of his followers where Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, so it's not like there was this little click that all had the same beliefs.
Trashcan meme dealt with in video from theopneustos man

James White is extremely annoying. His interview with Pastor Anderson spoke volume. Anyway:

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844,
and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that 
What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, 
The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets,

It really did
Did you watch the video?

Source: Wordpress written by 2 PhD holders
dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/was-sinaiticus-found-in-a-trash-can-or-not-more-hip-thigh-nonsense/

Oh, you're just a troll. Well done

Yes I watched it. He's wrong.

...

Because you have no retort?

Nice. Will listen to this today.

These ten guys told me 2+2=4, but this one guy told me 2+2=5. Since that one guy is the only one giving me a different answer, he must be right!

I agree. The 54 KJV translators superceed 1 or 2 unsaved heretics behind the other versions.

Where did all this stuff about modalism come from recently?

I've been hearing a lot of IFB pastors not believing in the trinity?

What are the scriptures that confirm the trinity?

haha

Just certain people who were in Anderson's "movement." I'd be asking some searching questions if someone I knew for that many years brought this up.

People like to think that 1 John 5:7 is it, but that's far from the truth. In fact, John 10:30 asserts the same thing, it just doesn't include the third person of the Holy Spirit there, and that's actually where all the modalists went to argue.

You see, Hebrews 1:8 in the KJV clearly shows the Father addressing the Son as God, but it's commonly distorted in modern translations. Philippians 2:10-11 shows the person of Jesus Christ is Lord, compare with Isaiah 45:22-23. He claimed it himself so many times, for example Matthew 26:64, John 8:58 and of course John 18:5-8. In so many ways the Lord affirmed himself that he was God, just read the Gospels and Revelation 1-3 to find that out.

Now modalists wanted to get around that by way of denying the personhood of the Father and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Yet you see them mentioned all together clearly and distinctly in a number of places like Matthew 28:19, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:13-15, Acts 1:7-8. Many times more with just the Father and the Son. And of course you get the same personhood of the Holy Spirit from Acts 13:2 and Acts 5:3-4 not to mention from St. John chapters 14-16 from before. If you want a bigger list just see the related chart.

Attached: bc745f31e.png (822x1857, 272.47K)