Favourite Bible Translations

That is because someone had them preconditioned. The topic was not ISRAEL it was those who could not endure the glory on Moses face. It was specific about the kind of heart of the people with the vail. I get that and your bible study group should have got that as a natural comprehension of the context. Someone told them to think ISRAEL. His point was not about a nation but about a heart condition, of unbelief and blinded by their heart condition. The example comes out of the history of Israel but it is an object lesson we are to learn from. Dont be like them who could not look steadfastly on Moses face. BEHOLD THE GLORY OF THE LORD in the face of JEsus Christ and instead of shrinking back, welcome it and want it. If you don't get the revelation of the personal application you are also blinded by a vail.

I know very well, the footnotes are not part of the text of scripture and cannot be trusted.

Just trust adulterers Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara Nee Ehlers, they created the conterfeit Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) that supports all new bible versions

The translators of the King James were detailed Christian's, brilliant scholars.

The Use of Italics in the King James Bible

• 

by Dr. David L. Brown

Why did the King James Bible translators use italics in the King James Bible? Was it because God miraculously gave the translators additional inspiration the same way He did as recorded in 2 Peter 1:21, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”? Or is it, as some have assumed, that these words were printed in this fashion for emphasis? The answer to both of these questions is, NO.

In fact, the words in italics in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because a word in one language may not have a corollary word in English and idiomatic expressions often do not easily move from one language to another. Hence, the words in italics are words which do not have any equivalence in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text. By adding these words, the translators’ goal was to make the meaning of the sentence clearer and produce a more readable translation that read smoothly, yet was true to the original. However, to make sure that the reader understood that these words were not in the manuscripts, they set them in italics.

Explain why you are claiming IT is feminine? Where did you find any reference to the Greek word here for IT being feminine when IT is not in the Greek. You just made that up didn't you?


ἡνίκα (hēnika) (Whenever) δὲ (de) (however) (ἐὰν) ean (if)

ἐπιστρέψῃ (epistrepsē) (shall have turned) The word is a Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular NOT FEMININE.

πρὸς (pros) (to) Κύριον (Kyrion) (Lord) περιαιρεῖται (periaireitai) (is taken away) τὸ (to) (the) κάλυμμα (kalymma) (veil)

Marginal notes in the original KJV were to show how sometimes they could not agree on which english word or phrase to use so they included an additional translation in the margin. The scholars behind the KJV agreed that this would be the best way for the reader to understand that the original Hebrew or Greek could be translated either way and there was strong reasons for both.
An example is Gen 4:26 You might see some KJV that say "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" and in the margin it says "or by the name of the Lord" It literally can mean either and there was just as many reasons to use one or the other. The second "by the name of the Lord" would be a more literal translation but did not make as much sense to the English reader. However if they stuck to that translation it would have made more sense when you get to Gen 6 and there is an unexplained reference to "the sons of God."

These marginal notes from the original KJV are priceless and to be relied upon as anything else in these scholars translation work from the original language to the English.

If anyone says that the KJV is more inspired than the original manuscripts in their original languages they are guilty of ignorant fanaticism and cannot be reasoned with.

Are you aware that the original 1611 “translation” had 7,342 margin notes? Where did they go?

Guilty as charged!

Yep, 7,342 notes that do not need to be there. I trust the text.

So, you prefer the “Revised KJV?”

Neither will I.

That's their problem, not the problem of the text. Didn't anyone in your Bible study instruct the group in proper interpretation?

The KJV translators couldn't decide, which is why they included the marginal notes with alternate renderings.

Dino, do you feel sorry for the billions of folks around the world that can’t read English? The way I see it the KJV is only for English speaking people and those that must read another language, well, I just hope they have a good translation.

Since either you don't want to understand the fallacies you are employing, or you do understand but are using them anyway, I see no further need to discuss this point with you.

Given the nature of the people whom God used to preserve the lineage of Christ and to pen various components of Scripture, I don't think your assertion has any merit.

I do, the 1769 revision did nothing more than correct printing errors and grammar

No revisions were made, but spelling changes to update the spelling of a word.

Great! I'm glad you have a bible you believe every word...no changes needed.

God didnt use (Unsaved) adulterers to preserve his Greek Text, David repented if his sin, Kurt Aland died in it, being married to Barbara Ehlers to the grave, Adultery