No major doctrines changed?

Nope. They represent the translators best efforts at being faithful to the text, in most cases.

Did you know that Joseph spoke Egyptian to his brothers when they came to Egypt? What Joseph spoke was translated to Hebrew, and the Hebrew translation made up the originals. There are many examples throughout scripture of inspired translations.

Ok. Do you have any proof for this phenomenon occurring during this particular incident?

Genesis 42:23 ESV They did not know that Joseph understood them, for there was an interpreter between them.

That kinda' speaks to the issue... but, I don't recall the interpreter's words being recorded...?

23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

Several times Jesus spoke in Aramaic but the words were translated into Greek.

If there are so many examples of inspired translation, why is the KJV the only truly inspired translation available today? If I accept your theory, then theoretically many Bibles could be inspired translations. We're right back where we started: You have no scriptural authority for your theories and scriptural authority is all we have. I could say the NIV is God's inspired and infallible word and you'd have nothing that can prove me wrong.

You are going about this all wrong. You continue to read texts (Matt. 5:28) with your 21 c. goggles on. Take them off for five minutes.

The issue you face is that there is no Greek equivalent to the English term “whosoever,” period. Whenever you see the word, “whosoever” it is a translation of pas ho (“all the”). So in short, Matt. 5:28 literally says, “but I tell you that all those who look (or ‘all those looking’) upon a woman… .” The KJV uses “whosoever” to translate the same term that other translations render as “everyone,” or “anyone.” There is truly no difference between the KJV’s rendering and the Lexham’s, or NET’s, or NASB’s. They are simply stating the very same thing, but using terms relative to the time period. So when it says in the second half of Jn. 3:16, “for God so loved the world that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (“all the believing” or “all those believing”) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” the term πᾶς (“all”) is qualified by ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). It does not exclude, or include anyone that falls outside the category of “the believing.” It is an absolute “all,” in a qualified statement—“all the believing.” This is quite a bit different than using an objective nuance of the term “whosoever.”

In Jn. 3:8 the same term (as in Jn. 3:16) is used, πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (“all those born of the Spirit”). Jn. 3:8 follows the same verbal and syntactical pattern as 3:16, where πᾶς is placed in juxtaposition to the articular phrase, ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. The only difference is that in 3:8, “all” is qualified by “those born of the Spirit,” whereas, in 3:16 “all” is qualified by “the believing.” If consistent in application, one would need to demonstrate that the term in 3:8 should be construed with the objective nuance of “whosoever,” even though the KJV does not do so.

Further, in Jn. 3:18, the same group (as in 3:16)— ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”)—is set in contrast to μὴ πιστεύων (“non believing”). So Jn. 3:16 designates everlasting life to ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). Every person that believes in Jesus Christ will have eternal life; that is all the passage is stating. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am completely aware of 21C Western glasses by the way but you can presume, we all do it from time to time.

I am not completely sure of your argument, I need to think on it a bit, but I completely appreciate the time and effort of your post and your willingness to clarify.

One question comes to mind before I consider the rest, you state "the issue you face is that there is no Greek equivalent to the English term “whosoever,” period."

It is my understanding that
ὅστῐς • (hóstis)
is an indefinite relative pronoun: whoever, whichever; anyone who, anything which; someone who, something which

So why do you say there was no equivalent?

On whosoever-John 3:16

It is interesting to note that even different Greek words can be translated with the same English word. The KJB for example did use ‘Agape’ and ‘Phileo’ translated in the same English word “love”.

For the word, “Whosoever” are the following English authorities that I believe KJB is correct until today and the strength has exceeded that of any others that might be used in English words for the given passage. I observed the following based on the below definition of various dictionaries. Here’s what they said.

• Whosoever means the same as whoever.

[literary, old-fashioned]

• an archaic or formal word for whoever

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/whosoever

• old use for whoever

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/whosoever

4. whosoever /ˌhuːsəˈwɛvɚ/ pronoun

Britannica Dictionary definition of WHOSOEVER

formal + literary

: whoever

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/whosoever

• used for emphasis instead of “whoever”

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/whosoever

• whosoever

pronoun

who·so·ev·er ˌhü-sə-ˈwe-vər

: WHOEVER

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/no-major-doctrines-changed.210115/page-18


Whoso, Whosoeverpronoun.

Any, without restriction.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/whosoever


whosoever

pronoun

/ˌhuːsəʊˈevə(r)/

/ˌhuːsəʊˈevər/

(old use)

1. an old form of whoever

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/whosoever

whosoever

WHOSOEVER, pron. who, so, and ever. Any one; any person whatever.

Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Revelations 22.

1828 Webster Dictionary



whos•ev•er

(huˈzɛv ər)

pron.

1. the possessive case of whoever used as an adjective: Whosever wagon this is, remove it.

2. the one or ones belonging to whomever: Whosever this is, please claim it.

[1730–40]

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/whosever
Now for the other translations, Lexham and the NET Version has 'everyone'

16 For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

Lexham Bible

16 For this is the way[a] God loved the world: He gave his one and only[b] Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish[c] but have eternal life.



Net Bible

So, we have the case of “everyone” is correct because the KJV has ‘whosoever’ which has no Greek equivalent as others say. As observed in the Dictionaries, “Whosoever is an old use/archaic/ old-fashioned of whoever. It is a formal, literally in use. It is a contraction of three words ‘who, so and ever. It has the element of time, ‘ever” and ‘person’ that is who. KJB translators may have retained the old form perhaps because of the strength of the English word ‘so’ as this denotes a condition and individuality. Also, it is the possessive case of whoever is used as an adjective. The Greek Morphological Analysis was A-NSM, Adjective Nominative Singular Masculine.

As posted by John146, KJB has it’s own definition and defined the archaic, old-fashioned ‘whosoever’ was translated as “every one’ in verse 20 using the same Greek pas.

KJV_Cambridge(i) 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So it can be seen that ‘Whosoever” can be very well understood nowadays the same as in the 17th century.

God bless

I was joking. Right?

But yeah...if you understand it...

Yes. The verilies and beholds are definitely more holy.

Sure helped Calvin.

It makes it very hard for those fond of tongue twisters to get past more than three repetitions.

Exactly. And yet we had a lot of going back and forth recetnly claiming that "whosoever" is inappropriate and we need to ask those from the 13th century as to what they really meant.

As to all the mockery of the King James Bible, the mockers and scoffers should understand that for millions of Christians for over 400 years this was (and is) the written Word of God. Those who mock, mock at their peril. These same scoffers really have no clue as to the reasons for the rejection of the critical texts and the modern versions. Chances are that not one of them has read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

Except for where they got it wrong?

..good thing you’re here to tell everyone where the “written Word of God” is wrong.

(No, I’m not KJVO..)

Who said "they got it wrong"? Show us a passage where "they got it wrong". You are another mocker and scoffer. I have already said that the KJV could use some improvements. That is not the same as "they got it wrong".

One might be Matthew 28:1...where the same word is used for sabbath(s) and week(s). Should it say at the end of the Sabbath to the first day of the week or the first of the Sabbaths?

Except only one thing, Nehemiah. No one ever said "whosoever" was "inappropriate," did they? Can you cite one example, where anyone (including myself, since I led the charge), ever indicated such? What was reiterated over, and over again, was that it was not that the use of "whosoever" that was "inappropriate," but that it was the fault of modern English readers (such as yourself) to force back onto the term what was not intended by the translators. They never intended an "objective" use of the term. You of all, Mr. "Whosoever," should know that.

Post #299 (see bolded portion),

Post #301,

Post #304,

I'm looking everywhere, Nehimiah. I can't seem to find the place you are suggesting I said "whosoever" was "inappropriate."

It should say "in the end of the sabbaths".
RECEIVED TEXT
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθε Μαριὰ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
LITERAL INTERLINEAR
After then [the] sabbaths, it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the tomb.
King James Bible
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
b. plural, τά σαββάτων (for the singular) of a single sabbath, sabbath-day (the use of the plural being occasioned either by the plural names of festivals, as τά ἐγκαίνια, ἄζυμα, γενέσια, or by the Chaldaic form שַׁבָּתָא (Winers Grammar, 177 (167); Buttmann, 23 (21))): Matthew 28:1

You will notice that σαββάτων also means "week" in this verse.