WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

[EddieRamos]

Yes, I haven’t misunderstood your purpose, thinking you are only giving an emphasis but just correcting your presentation if being honest in line with the thought of the KJB translators that you are trying to correct.

When actually by saying or quoting the “original text” as you insist, you must have seen it or read it, otherwise, we are not honest enough. The Textus Receptus or the Received Text may perhaps be the best representative of the “original text” but it is not the “original text”. As said, there were differing TR’s.

Taking "Sabaton" literally has the non-nonsensical translation, "In the end OF THE SABBATHS,” implies there were many Sabbaths occurred in the very night, and “as it began to dawn,” referring to a sabbath day toward another sabbath” or would imply there was no sabbaths before this one before Mary came to the tomb. We have to note that there was no Greek text variant here. UBS says the same thing as the TR yet many mainstream English Bible is the same as the KJB.

On another, putting the Greek Sabaton " the first of the sabbaths" is totally an absurd translation. Observe, 1 Corinthians 16:2 and how well you get your idea with the exact same Greek phrase μίαν σαββάτων (which here in Matthew 28:1 has as "the first of the Sabbaths") in BOTH 1 Corinthians 16:2 μίαν σαββάτων and in Acts 20:7 as "the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK"- τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων

A literal translation may sound good but it has no sense in English. As far the plural form and singular form of the Greek word sabaton were used interchangeably as supported by many Greek Authorities including those Critical Greek lexicons, like Liddel and Scots, Vine, The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, even Thayer.

Quoiting your statement on Galatian 3:16 here read: “Once again, the translators decided to take a plural word and translate it as singular. As a general rule, if God intends for a word to be singular or plural, we should not take it upon ourselves (unless we have ample biblical justification) to change a plural word to a singular word and vice versa. We learn this here:”

Who told you this general rule, “if God intends for a word to be singular or plural, we should not take it upon ourselves (unless we have ample biblical justification) to change a plural word to a singular word and vice versa.” I find no relevance after all this concept being promoted by your literal reading. Not even Galatians 3:16 supported yours but rather solidify my proposition that a Greek word in the plural form and singular form are interchangeable in many ways because the translation demands it so, otherwise it will be absurd in translation.

Once again, it seems that you are either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it, so, for clarity, I will repeat myself from my previous posts. When I refer to the "original text", I am talking about the words that were later labeled as the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text. Not the original parchments, which are no longer in existence, but to the copies of those texts that were copied out, who knows how many times. I refer to them as the "original text" because God has preserved his words since the time he gave them. He has preserved his words forever, therefore it doesn't matter if we no longer have the parchments, we still have the original words of God recorded as they were given by God.

Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)
The words of the Lord are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I hope this clarifies your second paragraph response.

Now, regarding the Sabbaths. Your explanation of using the word "sabbaths" the way God wrote it, to imply that the only way to understand it is that it must be speaking about many Sabbaths that very night and so that makes the idea of a plural translation, nonsensical. But that is not the only way to understand that verse. In the end of the Sabbaths, is speaking about the end of the Sabbaths. And since God making reference to these Sabbaths that ended as the 7th day Sabbaths, then we can also understand this to mean, In the end of the 7th day Sabbaths (plural).

Your next explanation about the use of the phrase "as it began to dawn", really made no sense to me the way you explained it, but I'll try to see if I can understand what you are saying. You said, "and “as it began to dawn,” referring to a sabbath day toward another sabbath” or would imply there was no sabbaths before this one before Mary came to the tomb. ".
It seems you are saying that the phrase, "as it began to dawn", couldn't possibly speaking about Sunday, which would be the very next day. It seems you think this phrase is referring to the following 7th day Sabbath. But all we have to do is look at the text. Christ's body was removed from the cross Friday afternoon (the day of preparation) and they had to hurry to wrap it and get in the tomb because the sabbath day of rest was very close in coming.

Luke 23:52–56 (KJV 1900)
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. 54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath (singular) drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

On the Sabbath day, everyone was to rest, as per the commandment. Christ demonstrated this to us as even he, being dead, rested in the tomb, thus demonstrating his perfect obedience to the law of God. But this is when the 7th day of Sabbath rest would come to an end. In other words, Christ observed the final 7th Sabbath day of physical rest. This was the end of the ceremonial Sabbaths. The very next day, which would be early Sunday morning (while it was yet dark), Mary came to see the tomb. This day, Sunday, is what God has called the first of Sabbaths.

John 20:1 (KJV 1900)
The first [day of the week] cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Once again in this verse, God has stated the exact same thing he did in Matthew 28:1 in declaring that the very next day, when Mary came to see the tomb, not 7 days later on another Sabbath, but the very next day, God calling this day the first of Sabbaths. Therefore God is the one who has changed what day which he identifies as the Sabbath. And this Sunday was the very first of Sabbaths, because it now fell of the first day of the week instead of the 7th. The translators picked up on the fact that Mary came to visit Christ the very next day and not 7 days later on another Sabbath, therefore they translated these passages as "the first day of the week", (which is when Christ arose and when Mary did come), but in doing this, they concealed a great truth that God had for us.

You then compared the Greek in Matthew 28:1 to 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7 as having the same exact Greek phrase.

1 Corinthians 16:2 (KJV 1900)
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

So, in this verse, the translators made the same mistake as they did in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2 and John 20:1. They translated a plural word as singular and added the word "day". So how do we understand this phrase in light of its first use at the resurrection of Christ? We learn that the Greek word for "first" can also be translated as "one". But this passage isn't focusing on "one" of the Sunday Sabbaths, because when we look up the translation for "upon" we can see that this Greek word (kata) is followed by a word of the accusative case and should be translated as a preposition of succession as "throughout every". This correction gives way for a better understanding of this verse. "Throughout every one of the Sabbaths, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come".

The collection of the saints was to be done each Sunday, or, throughout every one of the Sabbaths.

You stated that "A literal translation may sound good but it has no sense in English". Well it does if you ask yourself, "what is God trying to say here?", rather than dismissing it as a nonsensical sentence. But because you do, and you fully trust in an inerrant KJV, you'd rather see what the "scholars" have to say. And because their words reassure you that the Greek word "Sabaton" can be translated as a plural word if God wrote it as a singular word and vice versa, then nothing else I show you from the scriptures will amount to much.

 

[EddieRamos]

EDDIE RAMOS you quoted and gave an out of context explanation: Galatians 3:16 (KJV 1900)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The only time I have seen ample biblical (not logical) justification was when it came to translating the word "Elohim" which is a plural word, but the scriptures make it abundantly clear that Elohim is ONE God."

============================================================================================================

When translating the Hebrew word “Elohim, the KJB translators did not ignorantly translate it the way you intended it. The plural form “Elohim” is also translated as “sons of God”, (plural) Job 38:7 “gods” (plural) Exodus 18:11 Psalms 97:7 Psalms 82:6 rulers, judges (plural) (Exo. 21:6), etc. The point is a Hebrew or a Greek word can be translated in many ways based on the context, The plural form does not affect the sense in English.

Not really sure what you are trying to point out. The word "Elohim" is a plural word, not a singular word. Everywhere it is translated, it is translated in the plural form, which is what it looks like you are saying based on your specifications in parentheses that each word is translated as plural. No one is arguing that a Hebrew or Greek word can't be translated as another word, but nowhere in the scriptures are we given justification to translate a singular word as plural and vice versa. The KJV translators did as faithful job as they could, I'm sure. This is the closest to being the most faithful translation available, but it's not inerrant. But getting back to my singular/plural example, please consider this. The word Sabbath in the Hebrew is never translated as "week" or as "seven", much less as "day of the week". And since God chose not to use the word "week" in the New Testament like he could have easily done (and not because there was no Greek word available), then we have to ask why the translators took the liberty of doing just that? When the proper translation "Sabbaths" would have been the correct translation and would have taught us a far greater truth. Don't you find it odd that in the entire Old Testament, the translators saw the word for Sabbath and Sabbaths and translated it as such, each and every time, yet when they got to the New Testament, they went in another direction altogether.

Now, I don't believe that any Bible translator sets out to purposely do this, but because no translation is inspired by God, we must check and double check any translation we decide to hold as the word of God. And if we do this with any translation, we will always find inconsistencies and errors that were made. Not because we're any smarter or have a higher IQ, but because God has promised to open up the understanding of his word to his children in the time of the end.

Daniel 12:4 (KJV 1900)
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:8–10 (KJV 1900)
And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

 

[Noah761]

What were the words that the LORD spoke to Eve, and then what were Eve's exact words later?

The LORD "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen 3:15, RV)

The LORD "and I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your descendants and her Descendant. He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:15, AAT, 1st Edition William F. Beck/1976)

"And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD'". (Gen 4:1, RV)

"The man had sex relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and had a child by the name of Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a man, the LORD.'" (Gen. 4:1, AAT)

William F. Beck was Lutheran and adopted Martin Luther's translation of Gen. 4:1 and the Puritan Matthew Poole agrees it is a possible translation:

"From the Lord; or, by or with the Lord, i.e. by virtue of his first blessing, Gen 1:28, and special favour. Or, a man the Lord, as the words properly signify: q.d. God-man, or the Messias, hoping that this was the promised Seed."

But the Lutheran commentary, the K & D, reads on this:

"So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression אֶת־יְהֹוָה might be rendered, as in apposition to אִיֹשׁ, 'a man, the Lord' (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now."

Are we permitted to presume to know how much Eve knew or did not know about God's promise? Is it permissible to translate OT statements by Christian understanding that came many centuries later?

NOTE: The An American Translation by William F. Beck that is sold today is a revision of the original full Bible published in 1976 by the Leader Publishing Company. I like the original because the revision made changes I believe are incorrect. It is another example of a change on Ex. 21:22 from the older understanding to a modern theological slant -

The 1976 1st Edition reads "so that she loses her child but isn't harmed otherwise". The later revised AAT reads: "she delivers her child prematurely but there is no harm to either mother or child".

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do any or all "KJV Only" believers use the KJV with the Apocrypha? It is available from Amazon -

While the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV and remained in it for some time, it was eventually removed since those books are non-canonical. Therefore the translators made sure that they were not incorporated into the OT. If you enjoy reading them fine. But they have no bearing on Scripture.

 

[John146]

Not really sure what you are trying to point out. The word "Elohim" is a plural word, not a singular word. Everywhere it is translated, it is translated in the plural form, which is what it looks like you are saying based on your specifications in parentheses that each word is translated as plural. No one is arguing that a Hebrew or Greek word can't be translated as another word, but nowhere in the scriptures are we given justification to translate a singular word as plural and vice versa. The KJV translators did as faithful job as they could, I'm sure. This is the closest to being the most faithful translation available, but it's not inerrant. But getting back to my singular/plural example, please consider this. The word Sabbath in the Hebrew is never translated as "week" or as "seven", much less as "day of the week". And since God chose not to use the word "week" in the New Testament like he could have easily done (and not because there was no Greek word available), then we have to ask why the translators took the liberty of doing just that? When the proper translation "Sabbaths" would have been the correct translation and would have taught us a far greater truth. Don't you find it odd that in the entire Old Testament, the translators saw the word for Sabbath and Sabbaths and translated it as such, each and every time, yet when they got to the New Testament, they went in another direction altogether.

Now, I don't believe that any Bible translator sets out to purposely do this, but because no translation is inspired by God, we must check and double check any translation we decide to hold as the word of God. And if we do this with any translation, we will always find inconsistencies and errors that were made. Not because we're any smarter or have a higher IQ, but because God has promised to open up the understanding of his word to his children in the time of the end.

Daniel 12:4 (KJV 1900)
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:8–10 (KJV 1900)
And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

To the Bible skeptic, the Lord will lead you to believe a lie. He’s not going to pursue you to prove His word true.

 

[Dino246]

Once again, it seems that you are either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it, so, for clarity, I will repeat myself from my previous posts. When I refer to the "original text", I am talking about the words that were later labeled as the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text. Not the original parchments, which are no longer in existence, but to the copies of those texts that were copied out, who knows how many times.

Redefining a commonly-understood term to something that happens to suit your argument is nothing short of fraudulent. The TR and the Masoretic text ARE NOT the original text. They are copies of copies. While the text they present may be consistent with the original text, it is highly unlikely.

I refer to them as the "original text" because God has preserved his words since the time he gave them. He has preserved his words forever, therefore it doesn't matter if we no longer have the parchments, we still have the original words of God recorded as they were given by God.

Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)
The words of the Lord are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I hope this clarifies your second paragraph response.

Your argument has a fatal flaw: in the verse you cite, God did not promise to preserve His word forever!

Rather, He promised to preserve it "from this generation forever". By ignoring those three words, you are treating them as though they don't exist, and are thereby changing the text of Scripture. The conclusions you draw on an erroneous reading of Scripture cannot be correct, and of course, they aren't.

 

[Dino246]

Not really sure what you are trying to point out. The word "Elohim" is a plural word, not a singular word. Everywhere it is translated, it is translated in the plural form.

Your bolded sentence, while technically correct, highlights an error in the KJV.

As recorded in 1 Samuel 28, Saul sought out the witch of Endor. She complied with his request and saw something... (v. 13-14):

"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself."

The word rendered "gods" here is elohim. It is plain from the singular terms in verse 14 that it was a singular entity, not plural. She didn't see "gods"; she saw a singular "god".

Thanks for bringing to light further evidence that the KJV is far from perfect.

 

[EddieRamos]

Your bolded sentence, while technically correct, highlights an error in the KJV.

As recorded in 1 Samuel 28, Saul sought out the witch of Endor. She complied with his request and saw something... (v. 13-14):

"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself."

The word rendered "gods" here is elohim. It is plain from the singular terms in verse 14 that it was a singular entity, not plural. She didn't see "gods"; she saw a singular "god".

Thanks for bringing to light further evidence that the KJV is far from perfect.

I'm not sure if you like to comment just to be heard or if it's because you actually believe everything you are stating is true, without even first checking. Your claim here about the KJV being incorrect, well, it's incorrect. Anyone who is willing can examine the Hebrew text and see that in these 2 verses, the KJV translated it faithfully.

"I see gods (Elohim) (plural)".....
"What form is he of (3rd person masculine singular)....
"An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle (3rd person masculine singular).

And since we can always go back and verify any translation against the original texts, then we can be sure that there is absolutely no problem with the way the KJV translators translated these 3 words here. The problem always lies with the understanding of the reader. That's why we can't lean on our own understanding, but rather, we must always trust in God. And if we truly trust in God then we are trusting in His holy perfect and pure Word. I'm sorry that you don't believe that the copies of the copies are the preserved words of God, but I can't help you with that problem.

As I stated before, no translation is perfect, but the KJV far exceeds them all in accuracy.

 

[EddieRamos]

I'm not sure if you like to comment just to be heard....

Hey Dino246, I just thought about how this first sentence of mine sounded after I posted and I want to apologize. There was no reason for me to say that like that, as it was totally inappropriate. It won't happen again.

 

[Dino246]

But God often places stumbling blocks in His word for those who are trying to find a fault.

No, He doesn't, and that's not Peter's point at all. The Jews were offended at a "weak" Christ Who was crucified instead of being a conquering king. They chose not to believe in the Messiah when He came to them. This is a sick and disgusting attempt to slander people who disagree with your misinterpretations.

For example, the Bible says that ALL (every) scripture is God breathed and the examples I gave in my previous posts of God putting his words in the mouth of the people to speak as if though they themselves were speaking, is how we are to understand the scriptures as a whole.

And I have refuted your position, demonstrating clearly from Scripture that your position is wrong.

This is what causes you to believe that "not all that speak in the Bible is the Lord", and that is the stumbling block.

It is clear that Scripture is a record of interactions between God, humans, and other entities. Many of the words are not the words of God, but the record is of God. It escapes me why this simple distinction escapes you.

1 Peter 2:8 (KJV 1900)
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

The word translated as "disobedient" is actually the word "unbelieving". The bottom line is that one needs to have complete agreement with the scriptures before they can be certain they have arrived at truth.

Peter was talking about the gospel and the Jews' response to it, not to people in general or the Bible as a whole. People don't need to have complete agreement with the Scripture, because Jesus is the truth. He will bring His children into full understanding; we don't start there.

This means that the more "common sense" we apply to our interpretations, the farther away from truth we will be.

Once again, you're using flawed arguments. Common sense is only problematic when it directly contradicts God's word. Proverbs is replete with "common sense" instruction.

But if we're led by what the scriptures declare and demonstrate as examples of how God's Word was given, then we have no doubt how to understand God when he tells us that every scripture came from his mouth (was God breathed), by whatever means it was given.

Your position has been refuted. Your refusal to accept that is evidence that YOU are blinded to the truth.

 

[Dino246]

I'm not sure if you like to comment just to be heard or if it's because you actually believe everything you are stating is true, without even first checking. Your claim here about the KJV being incorrect, well, it's incorrect. Anyone who is willing can examine the Hebrew text and see that in these 2 verses, the KJV translated it faithfully.

"I see gods (Elohim) (plural)".....
"What form is he of (3rd person masculine singular)....
"An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle (3rd person masculine singular).

And since we can always go back and verify any translation against the original texts

No, we can't. We can, however, compare the KJV to the texts from which it was translated, and in this case, it is wrong.

then we can be sure that there is absolutely no problem with the way the KJV translators translated these 3 words here. The problem always lies with the understanding of the reader. That's why we can't lean on our own understanding, but rather, we must always trust in God. And if we truly trust in God then we are trusting in His holy perfect and pure Word.

Your position is wrong. There isn't even a shred of logic in your argument.

I'm sorry that you don't believe that the copies of the copies are the preserved words of God, but I can't help you with that problem.

Misrepresenting my position and decrying it is called a strawman fallacy. It's just a pathetic attempt to slander me.

As I stated before, no translation is perfect, but the KJV far exceeds them all in accuracy.

Your opinion is noted, and deemed both incorrect and irrelevant.

 

[tourist]

While the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV and remained in it for some time, it was eventually removed since those books are non-canonical. Therefore the translators made sure that they were not incorporated into the OT. If you enjoy reading them fine. But they have no bearing on Scripture.

I agree with your estimate on apocrypha. It might make a good beach read though.

 

[EddieRamos]

No, we can't. We can, however, compare the KJV to the texts from which it was translated, and in this case, it is wrong.

I will repost once more for clarity:

Your quoted reply above regers to what I stated in a previous post, which said:

"Your claim here about the KJV being incorrect, well, it's incorrect. Anyone who is willing can examine the Hebrew text and see that in these 2 verses, the KJV translated it faithfully.

"I see gods (Elohim) (plural)".....
"What form is he of (3rd person masculine singular)....
"An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle (3rd person masculine singular).

And since we can always go back and verify any translation against the original texts."

You responded by saying that the KJV translators got this wrong, but the information I gave you was from the Masoretic text which is exactly where the KJV gets its translation from.

Can you show me where the Hebrew text has, "he" and "old man" and "he" (again) as plural words to match the context of the Hebrew word "Elohim"?

It doesn't seem like you are big on posting scriptures, but at least give us something to support your claim besides your word. It would help to see where you are getting your information from.

By the way, this will be the last time I respond to your comments without scripture references, unless you have a question about something I said. It takes too much time for me to respond to arguments that have no scripture to accompany them. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

 

[elights]

The word of God was not written to satisfy our curiosity of authorship but to reveal God’s plan for mankind!! So you either believe it the way it was written or not and determine your own course of life!

 

[EddieRamos]

The word of God was not written to satisfy our curiosity of authorship but to reveal God’s plan for mankind!! So you either believe it the way it was written or not and determine your own course of life!

Hello elights, anytime God focuses on anything in his word, we are to pay attention to it. So, when God points out, in multiple places within his word, how his word actually came to be, then we can confidently conclude that God is in fact teaching us that knowing who wrote the Bible (authorship) is no less important than knowing any other doctrine.

As far as believing it the way its written (if you're referring to the translations we have), this idea opens the door to much confusion.

For example, there are many English translations and just as many which disagree with each other in content. Verses that have been translated differently, essentially, teach differently.

Fortunately, God has not left us without his preserved word, which is perfect and pure. He has left us the Hebrew and Greek texts by which we can always go back and check to see if the translation we are reading has done a faithful job in any particular passage you're studying.

While this version isn't without its share of errors, I have found the KJV translation to be the most faithful to the original text.

I hope this helps.

 

[Dino246]

"I see gods (Elohim) (plural)".....
"What form is he of (3rd person masculine singular)....
"An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle (3rd person masculine singular).

And since we can always go back and verify any translation against the original texts."

You responded by saying that the KJV translators got this wrong, but the information I gave you was from the Masoretic text which is exactly where the KJV gets its translation from.

Yet the KJV is not correct, regardless of its source. The context makes elohim singular in this case, and it should have been translated as "a god" or "a spirit" as it is rendered in modern English translations.

Can you show me where the Hebrew text has, "he" and "old man" and "he" (again) as plural words to match the context of the Hebrew word "Elohim"?

No, as I'm not claiming that. I have no obligation to support a point I have not made.

It doesn't seem like you are big on posting scriptures, but at least give us something to support your claim besides your word. It would help to see where you are getting your information from.

When it is appropriate to use Scripture to refute your claims, I have done so at least by reference if not by actual quotation. I see no point in repeating verses that were quoted in a post to which I am responding.

By the way, this will be the last time I respond to your comments without scripture references, unless you have a question about something I said. It takes too much time for me to respond to arguments that have no scripture to accompany them. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

You aren't the first to set up such a silly standard, and you likely won't be the last. Whether I quote Scripture or not, your position is still wrong.

 

[Dino246]

While this version isn't without its share of errors, I have found the KJV translation to be the most faithful to the original text.

It's good that you aren't blind to its errors as some adherents are.

 

[Noah761]

While the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV and remained in it for some time, it was eventually removed since those books are non-canonical. Therefore the translators made sure that they were not incorporated into the OT. If you enjoy reading them fine. But they have no bearing on Scripture.

"There were many reasons to include the Apocrypha within the pages of the Bible during the 17th century. Protestants of the time were deeply engaged in debates with Catholics over doctrine, so Protestant pastors and theologians were served well by being well-acquainted with the Apocrypha which formed the basis of several Catholic doctrines. Some books, such as Maccabees and Sirach, are quoted in the Talmud; so familiarity with the Apocrypha can be helpful to understand Judaism during the time of Jesus Christ. The fulfillment of some Old testament prophecies, such as those in Daniel, can be confirmed by the historical information in the Apocryphal books such as Maccabees. Despite its inclusion in the KJV, however, the translators did not consider the Apocrypha as part of scripture. Whereas Catholic Bibles included the Apocryphal books mixed with scripture, the KJV separates the Apocryphal books and labels them with the irreverent generic running head, “Apocrypha” (which means “obscure”). The Apocrypha is no more inspired than are other things that might be included in today’s editions of the Bible, such as study notes, book introductions, devotional tips, etc. We can just as well say about some study notes that they are to be "read for example of life and instruction of manners" but not to "establish any doctrine". The Apocrypha is not included in most publications of the KJV today."
https://www.kjvtoday.com/home/editions

I have a list of various cross references from the inspired word of God to the non-canonical Apocrypha that I've gathered over time and I find them of great interest to know what the Jews believed on certain points in the period between the OT and NT. The first sample of listing are from the Cambridge KJV with the Apocrypha I mentioned in the OP.

Gen. 1:26 to -
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. (Wis 2:23)
Gen. 1:31 to -
All the works of the Lord are exceeding good, and whatsoever he commandeth shall be accomplished in due season. (Sir 39:16) [Ecclesiasticus or Sirach]
Gen. 2:11 to -
He filleth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris in the time of the new fruits. (Sir 24:25)
Gen. 4:8 to -
But when the unrighteous went away from her in his anger, he perished also in the fury wherewith he murdered his brother. (Wis 10:3)
Gen. 5:24 to -
Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. (Sir 44:16)
Gen. 7:23 to -
For whose cause the earth being drowned with the flood, wisdom again preserved it, and directed the course of the righteous in a piece of wood of small value. (Wis 10:4)
Gen. 9:14 to -
Sir 43:11-12 Look upon the rainbow, and praise him that made it; very beautiful it is in the brightness thereof. (12) It compasseth the heaven about with a glorious circle, and the hands of the most High have bended it.

The 3-Vol. hardcopy Matthew Poole(1624-1679) Commentary has additional KJV Apocrypha references:

Gen. 1:20 to -
2Es 6:47 Upon the fifth day thou saidst unto the seventh part, where the waters were gathered that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and fishes: and so it came to pass.
Gen. 2:7 to -
Sir 17:1 The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it again.
2Es 3:5 And gavest a body unto Adam without soul, which was the workmanship of thine hands, and didst breathe into him the breath of life, and he was made living before thee.
Gen. 2:17 to -
2Es 3:7 And unto him thou gavest commandment to love thy way: which he transgressed, and immediately thou appointedst death in him and in his generations, of whom came nations, tribes, people, and kindreds, out of number.
Gen. 2:18 to -
Sir 36:24 He that getteth a wife beginneth a possession, a help like unto himself, and a pillar of rest.

A third source of Apocrypha helps are the Oxford Annotated Study Bibles in the RSV, NEB, NRSV & REB editions. The one I have at hand is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, RSV, Copyright 1977, in which the Apocrypha is in the back of the Bible with an Index to the Apocrypha Annotations. The Oxford study Bibles do not have many cross references, but some are key such as:

Gen. 1:3-5 to -
2Ma 7:28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

Not all sections of the OT have numerous Apocrypha references as this but this is illustrative. Daniel of course has many cross-references to the Apocrypha.

 

[fredoheaven]

Luke 18:12 (KJV 1900)
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Here the translators came across the singular word for Sabbath and translated it as "week" (which is also singular). This shows an inconsistency in their translation, to use the word "week" whether they come across a singular or plural word in the original text. Nevertheless, had they properly translated it as "Sabbath", it teaches us that this Pharisee didn't say that he fasted 2 times in a 7 day period, but 2 times in the same day. And per the context, this would be a better understanding anyway, as he was trying to distinguish himself above his neighbor by his great sacrifice of fasting and many works.

Miss, this one but the translation of the Greek Sabaton here would not be "Sabbath" (singular/plural), not even "Sabbaths" (plural) but a week (singular) to mean 7 days period and not a day or the seventh of a week. Why?

Because this will contradict the day of rest (7th day) of the Jewish tradition. The sabbath is not a fasting day, it is a feasting day.

I believe that the Pharisees fasted twice in the seven-day period not twice in a day. For Sabaton could either mean a week i.e. seven-day period or a day of rest (the seventh day). But as said it is important to know that in translation you need to consider its context without any contradiction. The Jewish observance of fasting is only to be in the Day of Atonement, a single fast (Lev 16:29; Num 29:7). The Pharisee on the other hand has to do it twice a week (in a seven-day period) and not to fast twice in 24 hr period or during the Sabbath or on the seventh day of the week (Saturday) because of the primary reason of a single fast in a day.

 

[fredoheaven]

Incidentally, the Greek word for "Sabbath" comes from the Hebrew word for "sabbath", so the rules of grammar you initially pointed out fall extremely short because the Hebrew word for "Sabbath" is not the same word for "seven" or for "week", they are all individual words. This is why our reasoning must be from the scriptures alone. This is one cohesive book from the mouth of God. The Hebrew word for "Sabbath" is only translated as "Sabbath" and the Hebrew word for "seven" and for "week" are never translated as "Sabbath". Therefore we can (with plenty of biblical support) say that if God wanted to write the word "week" in the New Testament, he would have done so. Likewise for the word "seven".

Yes, I am not talking that Sabbath is to be translated as seven as you are trying to imply but I am reasoning what the word “week” is in English and it could be the seven days period and when put into the context make sense. We are not talking about the Hebrew word for “seven” or week” but we are talking about the Greek Sabaton or its Hebrew equivalent. It’s too obvious to say that week or seven has corresponding Hebrew words and I agree with that but that is off the topic. We are here discussing the translation of the Greek Sabaton as English “Sabbath”.