A question for the OO crowd.

S

spock

New member
Elect
Joined
Jul 2, 2024
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Location
USA
Should all the Italicized words be removed from the King James Bible?
 
"the OO crowd"

Can't take seriously someone who demands answers from jargon you made up yourself, sorry.
 
Ekklesian said:
What's the OO crowd?
Click to expand...
Originals Only. And just as the scribes and pharisees could not (would not) answer Jesus' question put to them, we once again have similar results here.
 
spock said:
Originals Only. And just as the scribes and pharisees could not (would not) answer Jesus' question put to them, we once again have similar results here.
Click to expand...
Jesus refused to answer bad-faith questions. Your point?
 
spock said:
Originals Only. And just as the scribes and pharisees could not (would not) answer Jesus' question put to them, we once again have similar results here.
Click to expand...
I know of very few who hold to the "Originals Only," especially since we don't have the originals today. I know many who hold to only the King James Translation of the Bible for the English speaking people. I PREFER the KJV. I was "KJVO" for many years, but, when the position was finally taken to extremes, I refused to support the position any longer.
And regarding your statement about Jesus, He refused to answer questions that were meant to trap him, or were without merit. So, your comparison here is sort of void.
 
spock said:
Originals Only. And just as the scribes and pharisees could not (would not) answer Jesus' question put to them, we once again have similar results here.
Click to expand...
Do any Originals-Only people actually exist or is that a strawman created by the KJVO crowd?

Since I don't think there are any OO's here, and probably none of us are familiar with the non-existent positions the non-existent people hold, none of us will be able to answer your question.
 
voicecrying said:
Do any Originals-Only people actually exist or is that a strawman created by the KJVO crowd?
Click to expand...

By "Originals Only," they mean Christians better informed about textual issues than themselves.

"Originals-Onlyists" already recognize that, since no originals are extant, there can't be any such thing as "Originals-Onlyists."

So you're right, it's a KJV-only strawman. To be fair, KJV-onlyism itself is also made up out of thin air.
 
FSSL said:
The KJVO thinks everybody must conform to an "only" position because they are projecting.
Click to expand...
And it's been my experience that if we don't fall into their delusional stance on the issue that they're more than willing to break relationships over such.
 
A little off topic of the OP, but this is an interesting video:
 
Of course not! Why do you think the italics were there in the first place? The italics were added to ensure the English translation made sense and was faithful to the originals. Many things do not translate over exactly so in such instances, they got it as close as they could and italicized the added words.

Good grief! I understood this even when I was hard-core KJVO. They (KJVO teachers I had been under) said this was a way in which the KJV translators were trying to be honest and transparent but the KJVO types have more faith in their translation than the translators themselves so they ultimately come to the conclusion that the italics are inspired of God.

And as someone else has already said, no one in history has ever been "Originals Only!" Jesus certainly wasn't seeing how he often quoted Old Testament passages from the Septuagent - A Greek translation of the original Hebrew.
 
Ransom said:
To be fair, KJV-onlyism itself is also made up out of thin air.
Click to expand...
This is true. Those of us who are not KJV-Only do not have the Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts. Likewise, the KJV-Onlies do not have the original manuscripts of the AV1611. On that issue, the KJV-Onlies have no advantage over those who regard the original Hebrew and Greek rather than the AV1611 as the "Final Authority."

According to this author, nobody living today has ever seen the original manuscripts of the AV1611:

The Original Manuscript

I want to make a couple of observations about the original King James Bible. No living person has ever seen it. The original King James Bible was a handwritten manuscript purchased by Robert Barker for 3500 English Pounds. To get an idea of what 3500 pounds was worth keep in mind that when...
www.purecambridgetext.com www.purecambridgetext.com

"I want to make a couple of observations about the original King James Bible. No living person has ever seen it. . . . I personally have no doubts that it was what the translators called it, a perfect translation. There are no historical references of it after the great London fire of 1666. It probably was burnt. . . .

"If you have an original printing of the King James Bible or one of its facsimiles you have one of the worst printing jobs ever. Eventually Barker would go to jail over his sloppy printing and he was sued in court many times over it. In 1611 Barker printed two different copies, one complete bible and a New Testament. They do not agree."

Question for the KJV-Onlies: Which edition of the AV1611 is the "Final Authority," and how do we know that, since we do not have the original manuscript of the AV1611?
 
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that by "originals" the Vulcan might be meaning the long lost Autographs, which everyone assumes were practically dictated by the Holy Spirit.

He seems to be saying, if the KJV translators were not inspired, then the italicized words would be a corruption.

Is that the case, @spock ?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Of course not! Why do you think the italics were there in the first place? The italics were added to ensure the English translation made sense and was faithful to the originals. Many things do not translate over exactly so in such instances, they got it as close as they could and italicized the added words.

Good grief! I understood this even when I was hard-core KJVO. They (KJVO teachers I had been under) said this was a way in which the KJV translators were trying to be honest and transparent but the KJVO types have more faith in their translation than the translators themselves so they ultimately come to the conclusion that the italics are inspired of God.

And as someone else has already said, no one in history has ever been "Originals Only!" Jesus certainly wasn't seeing how he often quoted Old Testament passages from the Septuagent - A Greek translation of the original Hebrew.
Click to expand...
I've lost many family and friends over this issue. I used to be KJVO until I saw how those who espoused this stance were harming other Christians with their indefensible rhetoric. It's just another way for the adversary to divide and conquer us.
 
voicecrying said:
A little off topic of the OP, but this is an interesting video:
Click to expand...
He talks about Mormons being KJVO but doesn't mention that they are sort of locked in to it since the book of Mormon quotes from KJV and since they were supposedly inspired/written independently if you accept the book of Mormon as inspired and they quote word for word KJV passages, then they must also accept KJV as inspired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top