The King James Bible

[SovereignGrace]

To the KJVO'ers, what's your favorite flavor of crayon?

 

[fredoheaven]

The scripture clearly states that Jesus said All power is given me...
Not...was given me.
And, he received it from another.
And he will one day give it back.

And authority governs power in the kingdom of God.
But in Satan’s kingdom of darkness, Might makes right.

Well, the powers that be is given to him by the Father which he was once hold. The same power and honour and glory he had while he was yet with His Father is to be given past the resurrection. The implication of Christ prayer before his sacrificial death as a Lamb on the cross proves he has once had. This power he had shared with his Father momentarily kept with the Father otherwise, redemption is not complete. After his bodily resurrection and into his ascension, he is rightfully given the same power he had in his glorified estate.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

His glory and power therefore emanates before the world was, in the brightness of his glory,

Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And until, he was slain to receive power.

Revelation 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

His second coming to earth and for eternity is no giving back of powers.

 

[MarcR]

Hi Lucy,

Let me reiterate that as a rule in translating the KJV that there has to be specific implementation in regards to the said marginal notes in the original 1611 KJV and the very reason why later editions have abandon the use of marginal notes. However, let us be reminded that the marginal notes of the KJV is a different in today’s footnotes. Here are the rules 6 and 7 for your reference:

6. No marginal note at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

7. Such quotation of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for fit reference of one scripture to another.

So in plain language, they were but only an explanation not a criticism or an obstruction and mostly were parallel passage/ references.

But why the later edition has no longer the marginal note?simply because it was generally stated that “No marginal note at all to be affixed…”

Again, why there is a big difference with today’s footnotes?

Today’s footnotes have misled many readers and bring confusion.

Let me demonstrate how misleading these footnotes from many of today’s English versions. Shall we?

Let me start with providing examples:

NKJV NU-Text and M-Text omit verse 36.

The NLT related footnote for 17:35 states:
Some manuscripts add verse 36, Two men will be working in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Compare Matt 24:40.
ESV has its footnotes in verse 35

Some manuscripts add verse 36: Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left
CSB Some mss include v. 36: “Two will be in a field: One will be taken, and the other will be left.

NASB Early mss do not contain this v

RSV Other ancient authorities insert verse 36, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left."

NIV Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The NIV related footnote for 17:35 states:

Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.

The question is: Are today’s footnotes in most Modern English Versions has a valid claim that “some manuscripts was “ inserted” or some “added” while others “excluded”, others “included” and or “omitted.”?

If it was inserted, added, included etc. where the evidence of this irresponsible act is? All one must have to do is to guess, perhaps a scientific guess. This is called emendation which simply means it’s up to YOU.

Why not in most of the New English Versions retain this verse since there are Greek textual evidences?

The NIV had even the worse footnote not only omitted the verse but made such remarks of excluding the verse in some Greek manuscript. Because it was excluded in some Greek, it will also be excluded in the NIV hence the NIV which is said to be a result of “Scientific Biblical Research” must be a misnomer! NIV is still an incomplete English Version.

Btw, scholars agree that evidences may be source through the following:

1. Textual Evidence. Uncials, miniscules extant Greek manuscripts etc.
2. Early Bible Versions. Old Latin, Itala, French Oliivati, Gothic etc.
3. Quotation from the Church Fathers and Lectionaries.

Bro. Will Kenney has detailed explanation on the link, if you wish to find biblical balance approach.
Luke 17:36 Scripture - Another King James Bible Believer

To conclude, Luke 17:36 the KJV had passed all the evidences and the footnote did not cause any obstruction in the text whereas the NIV especially did not pass the weightier evidence.



If you may, you can proceed by presenting your evidence or cite evidences that some manuscripts have excluded this text?

Thank you.

The issue is that Sinaticus and Vaticanus omit many verses included in the majority text. Whether the verses were added in later mss or dropped in Sinaticus and Vaticanus is an open question. There is good evidence that Sinaticus and Vaticanus are indeed earlier than all other available texts.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The issue is that Sinaticus and Vaticanus omit many verses included in the majority text. Whether the verses were added in later mss or dropped in Sinaticus and Vaticanus is an open question. There is good evidence that Sinaticus and Vaticanus are indeed earlier than all other available texts.

You are correct in that those two manuscripts (Aleph and B) are earlier than the others. Under NORMAL circumstances, they would be the closest to the originals. However, when it comes to the spiritual battle, the circumstances become far from normal. Thus those two have survived because they were rejected. They are at odds with the majority of manuscripts because they are corrupt. So the earliest are NOT the best, but the worst.

We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings.

Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt.

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body, “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”

And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?

The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, pp 55,56

 

[MarcR]

You are correct in that those two manuscripts (Aleph and B) are earlier than the others. Under NORMAL circumstances, they would be the closest to the originals. However, when it comes to the spiritual battle, the circumstances become far from normal. Thus those two have survived because they were rejected. They are at odds with the majority of manuscripts because they are corrupt. So the earliest are NOT the best, but the worst.

The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, pp 55,56

I agree that the majority text is superior to Sinaticus and Vaticanus; and have said so on other threads. However my statement that these two texts define the issue is still correct.

 

[trofimus]

Thus those two have survived because they were rejected.

Rejected by who, exactly? Even Erasmus wanted to have Vaticanus and wrote letters because of it to Rome. So there was no "this is a corrupted manuscript" mood.

And to get Sinaiticus from the monastery, even Russian Emperor had to be involved. So, again, totally the opposite of rejection.

They are at odds with the majority of manuscripts because they are corrupt.

Or because they are earlier.

 

[Musicus]

That is your opinion not an established fact.
The scripture says we are to rightly divide the word of truth.
That means man can falsely divide the word of truth.
One leads to a true understanding, and the other to a false understanding.
So far, no one that believes the niv’s rendering of Philippians 2 has explained anything. Instead opinions were offered.

For example, one translation says that Jesus promised to come soon.
Another says Jesus promised to come shortly.

“Soon" and “shortly” don’t convey the same meaning in the context of Jesus’ return.

If one translation says is coming soon, then the argument that some make, that 2000 years later doesn’t qualify as soon, proves the translation is false on that point.
But the Holy Bible says that Jesus is coming shortly. The word shortly has a definition that soon doesn’t share. Which is the idea of ‘as soon as possible." That translation is correct and reveals that there are things that must be done before Jesus can return. Things that will be done in short order however.

When the niv says, Peace on earth to men of goodwill, it doesn’t agree with the Holy Bible that says, Peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.
One translation is saying, only men of goodwill are granted peace by God, but the other translation is saying God’s grants peace and goodwill is towards all men on earth.

When we compare translations we may find some states completely agreeable. However some statements conflict.

When Jesus said, that the scripture can’t be broken, he showed that translation or understanding can be proven false.

The reason folks argue that all translations have error is because they know that various bibles contradict one another.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” Lewis Carroll

short·ly
ˈSHôrtlē/
adverb
adverb: shortly

• 1.
  in a short time; soon.
  "the new database will shortly be available for consultation"
  
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]soon, presently, momentarily, in a little while, at any moment, in a minute, in next to no time, before long, by and by; More informal anon, any time now, pretty soon, in a jiffy;
  dated directly
  
  "she will be with you shortly"
  
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
• 2.
  in a few words; briefly.
  "they received a letter shortly outlining the proposals"
  
  • abruptly, sharply, or curtly.
    "“Do you like football?” “I do not,” she said shortly"
    
    [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]curtly, sharply, abruptly, bluntly, brusquely, tersely, gruffly, snappily, testily, rudely "“I know,” he replied shortly"
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    
    
    Origin
    
    
    
    Old English scortlīce (see short, -ly[SUP]2[/SUP]).
  
  In this case I can assure you that shortly and soon mean the same. What Lew failed to see is that just because the writer says a word means something it does not mean the reader is not at liberty to say it means something else. You, sir, seem to be making a career of that. What dictionary says shortly also means as soon as possible?
  
  Blessings
  
  
  

 

[Nehemiah6]

Rejected by who, exactly? Even Erasmus wanted to have Vaticanus and wrote letters because of it to Rome. So there was no "this is a corrupted manuscript" mood.

Actually Erasmus himself REJECTED Vaticanus (B) after seeing its readings. Dig a little deeper. And long after Erasmus textual scholars established that this was a very corrupt manuscript and connected to Gnostic perversions.

 

[trofimus]

Actually Erasmus himself REJECTED Vaticanus (B) after seeing its readings. Dig a little deeper. And long after Erasmus textual scholars established that this was a very corrupt manuscript and connected to Gnostic perversions.

Wrong. Scholars did not establish anything like that. The opposite is true, Vaticanus is seen as one of the main manuscripts for translations.

Name some gnostic perversions present in Vaticanus.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Rejected by who, exactly? Even Erasmus wanted to have Vaticanus and wrote letters because of it to Rome. So there was no "this is a corrupted manuscript" mood.

And to get Sinaiticus from the monastery, even Russian Emperor had to be involved. So, again, totally the opposite of rejection.


Or because they are earlier.

Yes. Ersasmus wanted to use Vaticanus and couldn't get his hands on it. And Sinaiticus wasn't found until centuries later.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Wrong. Scholars did not establish anything like that. The opposite is true, Vaticanus is seen as one of the main manuscripts for translations.

Name some gnostic perversions present in Vaticanus.

This is what debating a KJVO'er is like...

 

[Dino246]

Actually Erasmus himself REJECTED Vaticanus (B) after seeing its readings. Dig a little deeper. And long after Erasmus textual scholars established that this was a very corrupt manuscript and connected to Gnostic perversions.

Please show any evidence to support your assertions.

 

[DiscipleDave]

No, I said the Modern Versions are more accurate. Get your facts straight and learn to comprehend what was spoken prior to making a KJVO retort.

lol. You are aware that by saying "Modern Versions are more accurate" is saying that previous versions are NOT accurate, right?

So then if you say Modern Versions are more accurate, then it is a fact that you are saying previous versions are not as accurate. Therefore when i say you are saying the KJV is not accurate, that is a True statement.

Else answer this question if you will. Is the KJV accurate or not?


^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[DiscipleDave]

Of course I can see the difference. The KJV suggests that Jesus was made, as though He were a created being! That's terrible! Throw that corrupt abomination in the rubbish bin where it belongs!

Is it not written that Jesus is the Son of God the Father?
Is it not written that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son?

Jesus was made by His Father. That is the TRUTH, and is not an abomination.

Who sent His ONLY SON to the Earth to be a sacrifice for us? God the Father sent His Son. Why does God call Jesus His Son? Because God created Him. God the Father created only two things. The Father created the Son (Jesus Christ) and His second-born (The Holy Spirit). Jesus and the Holy Ghost created all things that are made thereafter.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[Nehemiah6]

Please show any evidence to support your assertions.

There is a TON OF EVIDENCE which of course you would rather not look at. So why even bother asking for the evidence?

 

[DiscipleDave]

Yes, we can note the difference.

Another example of wrong translation in the KJV.

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

HELPS
gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another.

Tell me if this is possible:

Is it possible that God made sure the KJV was written in English EXACTLY as He wanted it to be written, knowing it was going to be His Word till His Son returns to the Earth?

And it is only humans interpretations (going to the Hebrew/Greek or what have you) that is in error? NOT POSSIBLE? Really?

The KJV and what it says in ENGLISH, is what GOD wants all English speaking people to believe. God does not, nor ever did expect or want a child of His to try to interpret HIS Word, by going to the Original documents to try to gain understanding of His Word.

Know you not, that if God wanted the Original versions to be His Word, they would be used today and be His Word of God. There would be no KJV at all, if God wanted us to study and read the originals?

God wanted a version that would be simple to read (english) And God made sure that the english Bible that HE wanted, was going to be EXACTLY as He wanted it to read (REGARDLESS what the original texts said) His version would last until the return of His Son Jesus Christ. What the KJV says is EXACTLY what God wanted it to say. It is His Word.

Know you not that if the Original was what God wanted, He would not have replaced them with the KJV. The KJV REPLACED the original documents. But leave it to this wicked generation to act as if the originals are the authority concerning the Word of God, when God replaced them with the KJV. Children can understand this logic. But leave it to the learned to confound that which is simple. The KJV is the Word of God. God replaced the originals by coming up with the KJV. sigh.. .. .

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[Dino246]

lol. You are aware that by saying "Modern Versions are more accurate" is saying that previous versions are NOT accurate, right?

So then if you say Modern Versions are more accurate, then it is a fact that you are saying previous versions are not as accurate. Therefore when i say you are saying the KJV is not accurate, that is a True statement.

Else answer this question if you will. Is the KJV accurate or not?


^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

Is the KJV accurate or not? Well, since you put it in the form of an either-or question, the answer is "not" since it is not perfectly accurate. The reasons and examples have been presented in this thread and others, so I'm not going to waste space listing them.

However, an either-or question on this is misleading, because it implies that if a translation is not completely accurate, it is completely inaccurate, which is not the truth either.

There is no perfect translation done by humans, which the KJV was. Some versions are more precise than others (which is different than "accurate"), but aside from deliberate corruptions such as the NWT, all are adequate to lead someone to the Lord, and help them grow in faith and understanding. The wrangling over this word or that phrase usually goes nowhere.

Perhaps we need to stop arguing over the accuracy of a translation, and focus on its suitability to a purpose. Is the KJV a good choice for someone newer to reading English, or unfamiliar with the Elizabethan dialect? No. Is the Message suitable for looking at the precise meaning of a passage? No. Is the NASB suitable for reading aloud in a large congregation? No. Each has its place.

I'm no beginner in reading English, and in just four chapters of the KJV I came across several words that, while not entirely unfamiliar to me, would warrant pulling out a dictionary to confirm definitions. Further, several words and phrases clearly had a different sense to the translators than they do today. I could understand them because I was familiar with modern translations of those passages. For that reason, I don't use the KJV as a daily reader.

 

[Dino246]

There is a TON OF EVIDENCE which of course you would rather not look at. So why even bother asking for the evidence?

As I recall, you're the only one who has blatantly refused to look at evidence. Since you also refuse to post support for your assertions, I will ignore them.

 

[DiscipleDave]

It would help me if someone would provide the actual whole sentence as found in the niv rather than only a disconnected verse, since I have no niv.

The NIV is a great version of the Bible that can indeed bring people to the Lord Jesus Christ. That said. The NIV is not the Word of God.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[DiscipleDave]

Why are y'all still talking about kjv to Joseppi when the obvious serious issue is denying Christs deity?

This is a thread about the KJV. Is it not relevant to talk about the KJV Bible on a KJV Bible thread?

True if Joseppi has an issue with denying Christs diety, Why are you not starting a thread on that topic to try to help him with that serious issue?

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave