King James Bible

[Wansvic]

The KJV could disappear tomorrow but The Bible would still exist. The authority & diety of Jesus would still be preserved
in writing. The Gospel and every core doctrine of Christianty would be preserved in English bibles.

I hope you will eventually stop making war with your brothers & sisters and stop misrepresenting the bibles we read.

I am not making war with anyone. Each of us has the right to use the bible of our choice. However, I must say it's interesting to experience such push back when the purpose for sharing was in no way malicious. I believe shining light on the truth in an effort to inform others is a good thing and, as such, would be appreciated.

You as well as others can make the choice whether to review the changes made to the word of God or not.

 

[ResidentAlien]

However, I must say it's interesting to experience such push back when the purpose for sharing was in no way malicious.

People don't want truth anymore, they want sweet little lies.

 

[Wansvic]

People don't want truth anymore, they want sweet little lies.

Sadly that is true. But nonetheless our task is to continue to plant and water seeds of truth because it is God's actual word that will not return void. Praying people will at least consider what is presented. Be Blessed!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I am not making war with anyone. Each of us has the right to use the bible of our choice. However, I must say it's interesting to experience such push back when the purpose for sharing was in no way malicious. I believe shining light on the truth in an effort to inform others is a good thing and, as such, would be appreciated.

You as well as others can make the choice whether to review the changes made to the word of God or not.

Oh I see, all sweetness & light.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Sadly that is true. But nonetheless our task is to continue to plant and water seeds of truth because it is God's actual word that will not return void. Praying people will at least consider what is presented. Be Blessed!

Yes, totally agree.

 

[LoveBrokeThru]

which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia?

Let me share something with you that can help you a lot.

Don't believe everything that you find on Wikipedia.

Don't believe everything the Television tells you to think.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

i agree, people want sweet little lies:

3rd Century Greek Text:

1 John 5:7-8

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.


then we have the TR/KJV

from the Christian Publishing House:
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION

BY
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholar

Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.


How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.

Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.


1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


from 3rd Century TRUE GREEK TEXT to the 16th Century KJV that Scholars proven Erasmus totally messed up...just in 1 John 5:7-8 we have the difference of 25 words and a brand new meaning that the Apostle John never wrote about.

 

[persistent]

Let me share something with you that can help you a lot.

Don't believe everything that you find on Wikipedia.

Don't believe everything the Television tells you to think.

It seems that the real egregious errors on Wikipedia are easily caught. Any opinion on Lucy Worsley?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Sadly that is true. But nonetheless our task is to continue to plant and water seeds of truth because it is God's actual word that will not return void. Praying people will at least consider what is presented. Be Blessed!

But we have seen what you posted ad nauseam. It is not truth as you claim. It's KJV ONLY propaganda.
Misleading & false accusations. A witch hunt. An attack on English bibles, on translators & on manuscripts.
There is no love in it. Only devisive religious fanaticism.

God's word is preserved without the KJV.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It's KJV ONLY propaganda.

You don't have to be KJV only to recognize the serious problems with the critical text and the translations based on it. I wouldn't tell someone they shouldn't use a modern translation; but what I would say is they shouldn't put 100% confidence in modern translations, and should be aware of the pitfalls.

 

[Lanolin]

lolcat

is da Bible Im telling yous. John 3:16

so da Ceiling Cat lieks de ppl lots and he sez 'oh hai I givez me only kitteh and ifs yous beleeves in him u never dies no more k?'

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Can you post Matthew 18:11 from your new version? It’s a great memory verse.

Of course. Here you go.

CSB
Some mss include v. 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.

NIV
Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’

NASB
Late mss add (traditionally v 11): For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost

NET
The most significant mss, along with others (א B L* Θ* ƒ1, 13 33 892* e ff1 sys sa), do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc 078vid 565 579 700 892c 1241 1424 M lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

My faith is not so weak that it can be destroyed by knowing some manuscripts differ.
I like the honesty and reality printed in the versions above because I study The Bible.

 

[ResidentAlien]

CSB
Some mss include v. 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.

NIV
Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’

Here's the problem. It's not some manuscripts but the majority. The notes in modern versions gloss over the fact that the critical text is in the minority.

NASB
Late mss add (traditionally v 11): For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost

Again, this is deceptive. Yeah, late mss. have the verse, but what they don't tell you is the late mss. are in the majority. They also assume the verse was added, they don't really know; but they don't tell you that. Modern versions are based on two early manuscripts: two! But as I've shown elsewhere, early isn't necessarily better. The only argument modern versions have to make is that these two manuscripts are older, but so what.

NET
The most significant mss, along with others (א B L* Θ* ƒ1, 13 33 892* e ff1 sys sa), do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc 078vid 565 579 700 892c 1241 1424 M lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

The most significant manuscripts? All those other manuscripts include it but it's "almost certainly not original." Why do they think that? Because NA28 (Nestle-Aland critical text) tells them so. The critical text, which is based on two manuscripts, said so, so it must be true? Get real.

It's good that these versions have explanatory notes. But the real problem is one of honesty. They aren't so much interested in truth as in pushing an agenda.

 

[Beckie]

The KJV could disappear tomorrow but The Bible would still exist. The authority & diety of Jesus would still be preserved
in writing. The Gospel and every core doctrine of Christianty would be preserved in English bibles.

I hope you will eventually stop making war with your brothers & sisters and stop misrepresenting the bibles we read.

Spanish Bibles French bibles they are not good?

 

[Dirtman]

Spanish Bibles French bibles they are not good?

No! Because God only lives English speaking folks particularly Americans.
You know Jesus gave the sermon on the mount from the KJV.

 

[Chester]

It's quite simple; see my post #65.

I have looked at this issues very in-depth and had many tell me every angle of it over the years. To "prove" (for example) that the disputed verses in Mark 16 were or were not in the original text is a difficult task. No one has the original manuscript so technically it is impossible to prove. No one is alive who saw the original manuscript. We have lots of manuscripts and lots of circumstantial evidence but nothing that "proves" it beyond reasonable doubt. Well, of course some will say it is beyond reasonable doubt that it was not there. But there are some on the other side who say that it was there!

Does it matter? Well, of course that section in Mark 16 has some deep implications about miracles, but really - to me at least - whether that section of verses was or was not in the original manuscript makes no difference in what the Bible teaches about salvation and really little difference in my view of miracles. We have plenty of other texts that are clear that God can and does do miracles.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Early doesn't necessarily equal better. The Nag Hammadi texts are very early; maybe we should consider making them authoritative. Each text or group of texts has to be evaluated on a number of factors, not just age. When we do this with the critical text it fails miserably.

RA,

Very good points. I have a couple parallel Bibles for reference on my shelf that I haven't touched for years. I'm about ready to dispose of them as they are taking up space in my library. They are in perfect condition and older than a very worn KJV that I have to handle with care.
It goes even deeper than that.
Here's a linguist who has written a book on the subject here.

 

[Lanolin]

haha KJV is not gonna disappear no matter how much you personally dislike it. Some pps got nothing better to complain about, honestly.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

haha KJV is not gonna disappear no matter how much you personally dislike it. Some pps got nothing better to complain about, honestly.

My accurate KJVs are well worn and get saved if I added notations along the way or answered prayers on blank pages.
I'm not sure that I was clear in my last post, so please excuse any misunderstanding.
The NAS, and critical text versions I have on the shelf are in pristine condition, but might need to make space for something that I'll read.

 

[Lanolin]

You need to direct your concern to the langauges most widely spoken on the planet, I wouldnt worry about the English! Since we have a great translation already theres no need to be all stuck up over which particular version of it speaks to you.

English is actually a rather easy language to read and speak, since a lot of it is phonetic and borrows a lot of words from other langauges.

Try reading the Bible in Chinese, or Spanish, which have more speakers than English. You need to learn a lot more than 26 letters of the alphabet to read Chinese.

btw All my KJVs are well read to point of falling apart.

Other bibles arent really necessary if you read the KJV...but of course thats preaching to the choir. Its possibly the ones who are tone deaf that need a bit of tuning up.