A major King James Version flaw

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Lets get some understanding about all this..
First, there are NO "original Greek Texts"..
None....Not one.

But there are some very old Greek texts. Enough to be fairly confident about what the original said.

And this thing we are 100% confident of: the original had no verse numbers.

Christianity has a plague in it. Its the plague of the "revisionist's mentality", the domain of the intrepid "bible corrector".....where so many pride filled devils sit on their throne of "final authority" and spit on the Bible from their alter of personal self righteousness.

That's a big accusation to make. Any evidence?

So, when you encounter a person who is IN Public, trying to cast Doubt on the Bible, then change the channel, as you are listening to a subverted heretic.

But isn't that just what you're doing, when you attack the Greek text as God gave it to us?
 
Upvote 0

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
837
260
46
Netanya
✟13,908.00
Country
Israel
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But there are some very old Greek texts. Enough to be fairly confident about what the original said.

1. ) And this thing we are 100% confident of: the original had no verse numbers.

2.) That's a big accusation to make. Any evidence?

3.) But isn't that just what you're doing, when you attack the Greek text as God gave it to us?


Read me more carefully....thank you.

1. Ive said nothing about the "verse numbers" as this is an irrelevant non-starter.

2. Do you want evidence that the Church is full of bible correctors? Ummm, how many are on this forum, talking about "what is wrong with the KJV"....."Lets look at where the BIBLE got it WRONG"
Need more? Check out your Forum.

3. I didn't attack the Greek.. I only highlighted the liars who try to usurp the Bible's Authority by trying to overplay the VALUE of the "original Greek" that does not exist, to thereby attempt to downplay the Final Authority of the Holy Bible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heavenhome
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1. Ive said nothing about the "verse numbers" as this is an irrelevant non-starter.

It's actually the topic of the thread.

2. Do you want evidence that the Church is full of bible correctors? Ummm, how many are on this forum, talking about "what is wrong with the KJV"

The KJV is just one of many translations. It accuracy, or lack there of, is a legitimate topic of discussion.

3. I didn't attack the Greek.. I only highlighted the liars who try to usurp the Bible's Authority by trying to overplay the VALUE of the "original Greek" that does not exist, to thereby attempt to downplay the Final Authority of the Holy Bible.

The final authority lies with the Greek and Hebrew. Translations are just translations.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
837
260
46
Netanya
✟13,908.00
Country
Israel
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's actually the topic of the thread.



The KJV is just one of many translations. It accuracy, or lack there of, is a legitimate topic of discussion.



The final authority lies with the Greek and Hebrew. Translations are just translations.

Is there "inaccuracy" in the KJV? I think not. There is just carnal prejudice related to opinion.

If you say the final authority lies with the "Greek and Hebrew" then you are short-sighted and do not realize that if this is the case, then its only those who are deeply trained in those languages, who would be the Light, for the rest of us. And what is worse, is that, they would have to be completely free of personal ideology and opinion, as otherwise they will filter these languages to make them fit their theology.
So, God, in his foreknowledge understood that ENGLISH would be the UNIVERSAL Language, eventually, so, He has given us an ENGLISH Bible, as our "final Authority".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heavenhome
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you have a copy of the original books?

I'm wondering if there's any application here?

Actually there is no such thing as "original books". The best biblical sources are a collection of scrolls -- copies of the originals -- that extend back thousands of years.

There are no chapters and verses in the scrolls as we know them; they were added much later. Dividing up the texts into paragraphs may be acceptable to make the translation clearer, but dividing the text verse-by-verse is a false division. It encourages people to take isolated verses out of context to give a false meaning.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And..?

There are other versions of the Bible that are divided (incorrectly) into chapters and separate verses, but the KJV is a version most often read with this translation flaw.

Any translation that is structured this way is also in error. It is an artificial division of the Bible text, and therefore leads to misinterpretation.
May I ask what Bible translation you use and how you reference specific passages?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Is there "inaccuracy" in the KJV? I think not. There is just carnal prejudice related to opinion.

If you say the final authority lies with the "Greek and Hebrew" then you are short-sighted and do not realize that if this is the case, then its only those who are deeply trained in those languages, who would be the Light, for the rest of us. And what is worse, is that, they would have to be completely free of personal ideology and opinion, as otherwise they will filter these languages to make them fit their theology.
So, God, in his foreknowledge understood that ENGLISH would be the UNIVERSAL Language, eventually, so, He has given us an ENGLISH Bible, as our "final Authority".

Oh my. There is some "inaccuracy" in every translation, since translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into English is by no means an easy task. Not only do the words have a variety of meanings themselves, but when put into sentences there are different tenses, idioms, and ranges of meaning.

"carnal prejudice"? is that a joke? I don't even know what that means. Is that different than spiritual prejudice (whatever that is)? Denominational prejudice? It's sad that you throw out centuries of work done by the most intelligent, educated scholars, with many source documents available to them, in favor of what King James wanted the Bible to say to support royal rule.

I guess that KJVOs will never throw away their prejudice. There is no rational reason to laud a 400-year-old translation over the great Bibles that we have today. Sad! Sad! Sad!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,551
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟248,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The King James Bible and other versions divide the text into verses and chapters. This erroneous division of Scripture leads to many false interpretations and causes people to quote the Bible text message incorrectly, thereby distorting its meaning.

Below is an excellent description of the problems that have been created. Source: blueletterbible.org

There Were No Chapter or Verse Divisions in the Original

When the books of the Bible were originally written, there were no such things as chapters or verses. Each book was written without any breaks from the beginning to the end. Consequently, there are a number of important observations that need to be made about the present chapter and verse divisions that we find in Scripture.

The Books Have Been Divided into Chapters and Verses for Convenience

The chapter and verse divisions were added to the Bible for the sake of convenience. There is no authoritative basis for the divisions we now find. For the greater part of human history, there have been no chapter or verse divisions in Scripture.

The Chapter Divisions Can Cause Problems

The chapter and verse divisions are convenient for reference and quotation purposes. They make it easier to find certain statements and accounts in Scripture.

It must always be remembered that the divisions into chapters and verses are human-made. They are sometimes arbitrary, and they sometimes interfere with the sense of the passage. The first step in Bible interpretation is to ignore the modern chapter and verse divisions.

The Verse Divisions Can Also Cause Problems

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)
The next verse emphasizes that such restrictions are human commandments—not commandments from God:

Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. (Colossians 2:22 NLT)
When we read the verse in context, it says the following:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch.” Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person’s evil thoughts and desires. (Colossians 2:20-23 NLT)


Therefore, this one verse, when read on its own, gives the wrong impression of the biblical teaching. This is one of the problems with the Bible divided into verses—people will isolate the verses from the rest of the context.

Many more examples could be listed. Indeed, one could argue that the Bible teaches atheism:

There is no God... (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Of course, the complete verse reads as follows:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Others could contend that Jesus taught cannibalism! The Gospel of John records Jesus saying the following:

So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56 HCSB)
This is why it is important to read each particular verse in context. Otherwise, one can make the Bible say things that it does not want to say.

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)

Chapters and Verses Are Not What the Authors Intended

The original authors of Scripture did not intend that their writings be divided up into chapters or verses. They intended that the books be read straight through from the beginning. A number of the books of Scripture can be read through in one sitting. This is the best way to discover what the author is trying to say.

Dividing up the Scripture into chapters and verses encourages people to read only small parts at a time. This is not always helpful. This is why the Bible should be read the same way as the original authors intended it to be read.
header design 5.jpg

Also the Old Testament (which is actually The Tanakh), the books are out of order.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Lets get some understanding about all this..
First, there are NO "original Greek Texts"..
None....Not one.
WE have copies of copies....and a very few fragments, and partial pieces of what could be considered the "original" Koine Greek parchments.
So, the first thing you need to really understand, is that when you hear someone say this.

"The original Greek says"....... = BUZZZZZZZ. There is no ORIGINAL.
There are 30 Greek Texts. We use 2,3. = all copies of copies.

Christianity has a plague in it. Its the plague of the "revisionist's mentality", the domain of the intrepid "bible corrector".....where so many pride filled devils sit on their throne of "final authority" and spit on the Bible from their alter of personal self righteousness.

So, when you encounter a person who is IN Public, trying to cast Doubt on the Bible, then change the channel, as you are listening to a subverted heretic.

This is a tragic post! "... so many pride filled devils sit on their throne of "final authority" and spit on the Bible from their alter of personal self righteousness." Whom are you referring to? KJVOs? Highly educated and motivated translators?

Translation, like every other discipline, improves over time due to 1) the greater amount of scroll fragments available, 2) the greater number of non-Biblical texts that clarify the source language meaning, 3) the improvement of the science of translation. There is no such thing as a literal, word-for-word, meaning-for-meaning translation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Read me more carefully....thank you.

1. Ive said nothing about the "verse numbers" as this is an irrelevant non-starter.

2. Do you want evidence that the Church is full of bible correctors? Ummm, how many are on this forum, talking about "what is wrong with the KJV"....."Lets look at where the BIBLE got it WRONG"
Need more? Check out your Forum.

3. I didn't attack the Greek.. I only highlighted the liars who try to usurp the Bible's Authority by trying to overplay the VALUE of the "original Greek" that does not exist, to thereby attempt to downplay the Final Authority of the Holy Bible.

Verse numbers are not "an irrelevant non-starter". They are a way of artificially dividing the Bible text, leading, by themselves, to misunderstandings of what the Bible says in context.

By "bible correctors", do you mean the many devoted scholars and the many of us that read several translations, or..?

"I only highlighted the liars who try to usurp the Bible's Authority by trying to overplay the VALUE of the "original Greek" that does not exist, to thereby attempt to downplay the Final Authority of the Holy Bible." Oh my, how confused you are! Of course there are no "original Greek" (or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic) scrolls that have been found. There are many early texts (and fragments) that are as close to the original writings as can be found. They and other non-Biblical texts are tools that translators work with, as well as having an understanding of the cultures, to give us the best translations. It's only in your mind that there is an "attempt to downplay the Final Authority of the Holy Bible." BTW, there is no such person or thing that is "the Final Authority of the Holy Bible", unless you mean God (which you clearly don't).
 
Upvote 0

TLSITD

Conservative Christian
Apr 26, 2020
315
296
40
Tennessee
✟15,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The King James Bible and other versions divide the text into verses and chapters. This erroneous division of Scripture leads to many false interpretations and causes people to quote the Bible text message incorrectly, thereby distorting its meaning.

Below is an excellent description of the problems that have been created. Source: blueletterbible.org

There Were No Chapter or Verse Divisions in the Original

When the books of the Bible were originally written, there were no such things as chapters or verses. Each book was written without any breaks from the beginning to the end. Consequently, there are a number of important observations that need to be made about the present chapter and verse divisions that we find in Scripture.

The Books Have Been Divided into Chapters and Verses for Convenience

The chapter and verse divisions were added to the Bible for the sake of convenience. There is no authoritative basis for the divisions we now find. For the greater part of human history, there have been no chapter or verse divisions in Scripture.

The Chapter Divisions Can Cause Problems

The chapter and verse divisions are convenient for reference and quotation purposes. They make it easier to find certain statements and accounts in Scripture.

It must always be remembered that the divisions into chapters and verses are human-made. They are sometimes arbitrary, and they sometimes interfere with the sense of the passage. The first step in Bible interpretation is to ignore the modern chapter and verse divisions.

The Verse Divisions Can Also Cause Problems

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)
The next verse emphasizes that such restrictions are human commandments—not commandments from God:

Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. (Colossians 2:22 NLT)
When we read the verse in context, it says the following:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch.” Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person’s evil thoughts and desires. (Colossians 2:20-23 NLT)


Therefore, this one verse, when read on its own, gives the wrong impression of the biblical teaching. This is one of the problems with the Bible divided into verses—people will isolate the verses from the rest of the context.

Many more examples could be listed. Indeed, one could argue that the Bible teaches atheism:

There is no God... (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Of course, the complete verse reads as follows:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1 NIV)
Others could contend that Jesus taught cannibalism! The Gospel of John records Jesus saying the following:

So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56 HCSB)
This is why it is important to read each particular verse in context. Otherwise, one can make the Bible say things that it does not want to say.

Dividing the Bible into verses can also give the impression that the Scripture consists of a number of maxims or wise sayings. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians:

Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:21 NLT)
This verse, by itself, gives the impression that Scripture encourages some type of physical self-denial. Yet just the opposite is true. In context, Paul is actually teaching against this type of behavior. His argument is as follows:

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as Don’t handle, don’t eat, don’t touch! (Colossians 2:20-21 NLT)

Chapters and Verses Are Not What the Authors Intended

The original authors of Scripture did not intend that their writings be divided up into chapters or verses. They intended that the books be read straight through from the beginning. A number of the books of Scripture can be read through in one sitting. This is the best way to discover what the author is trying to say.

Dividing up the Scripture into chapters and verses encourages people to read only small parts at a time. This is not always helpful. This is why the Bible should be read the same way as the original authors intended it to be read.
I don't think having chapters and verses in and of itself is deleterious to the correct understanding of Scripture so long as the reader is mindful to read them in context: read verses completely and in the context of the passage, passages in the context of the book or epistle, and books and epistles in the broader context of the entire Canon.

There is error in chopping up Scripture and trying to understand a single verse or passage without context and without comparing it with other verses that pertain to the same subject.

I've never read the Bible in a piecemeal fashion---taking verses out of context or reading only a part of a verse and not comparing Scripture with Scripture to get the full understanding of a teaching or a subject---and I can't fathom how some do.

How do you think you understand what you're reading when you just pluck parts out of it at random and assume the meaning of them?

It's a big problem for many Christians. Verses don't take on whatever meaning we assign to them, and they're not applicable to whatever we want to apply them to. They have a God-given meaning and a God-given purpose which is up to us to understand through careful reading with the help of the Holy Spirit, not for us to create out of our own minds.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
May I ask what Bible translation you use and how you reference specific passages?

I use several translations, primarily the NET (New English Translation (with it's roughly 60,000(!) translators notes), the NIV (New International Version), the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) and occasionally, The HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), and the Geneva Bible (1599 version).

I'm not sure what you mean by how I "reference specific passages". I locate them by using the => added <= chapters and verses.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I use several translations, primarily the NET (New English Translation (with it's roughly 60,000(!) translators notes), the NIV (New International Version), the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) and occasionally, The HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), and the Geneva Bible (1599 version).

I'm not sure what you mean by how I "reference specific passages". I locate them by using the => added <= chapters and verses.
Okay...just so I understand correctly, you don't have a problem with the Chapter/verse reference system? Just how certain translations separate them?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay...just so I understand correctly, you don't have a problem with the Chapter/verse reference system? Just how certain translations separate them?

Correct. Chapters and verses is an excellent reference system, but they are not part of the Bible.

When the Bible text is broken down verse-by-verse it distorts the meaning. People quoting parts of the Bible out of context, which some do by isolating verses, leads to all sorts of distortions of meaning.

No written text should be broken down in this way for anything other than reference identification -- and that should only be in context. The devil tried to fool Jesus by quoting part of Scripture out of context. When humans try the same tactic to prove their own, predetermined point of view they are doing exactly the same thing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You say the KJV is flawed., yet you didn't prove it to us.
You only proved it to yourself.

Here is what you can do with a KJV.
Use it to correct all other versions.

For example....In the NIV....it says...>"He who was manifested in the Flesh".
So, get your KJV, and get the accurate translation... it says "God who was manifested in the Flesh".
1 Timothy 3:16

See how that works?
The KJV will clean up all other versions if you use the KJV to filter them.

I can't believe that you're actually saying this. 1 Timothy 3:16 has varying sources; some have "God", others have "He". (The translator's note on this verse is very long, citing some sources having "god",others having "he") In either case the meaning is clear. Since you don't know anything about Bible translation you should probably learn something.

It is just as valid to say, "The [put in your favorite translation here] will clean up all other versions including the King James". It is a 400-year-old translation based on a limited number of source documents, created for one purpose: to satisfy a king's idea of what a Bible should say to glorify him."

If you can stand reading all of it, here is the NET translator's note...

The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

If this one word is an example of your standard for rating other versions of the Bible, may God "open your eyes".
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually there is no such thing as "original books". The best biblical sources are a collection of scrolls -- copies of the originals -- that extend back thousands of years.

To the best of my knowledge, every single New Testament manuscript we have is actually from a book, not a scroll. Christians were among the first people to switch from scrolls to books.

There are no chapters and verses in the scrolls as we know them; they were added much later. Dividing up the texts into paragraphs may be acceptable to make the translation clearer, but dividing the text verse-by-verse is a false division. It encourages people to take isolated verses out of context to give a false meaning.

This is true.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To the best of my knowledge, every single New Testament manuscript we have is actually from a book, not a scroll.

Probably this tiny fragment from the Gospel of John is the oldest fragment of the Bible, dating from around the year 130. It is from a book page, with part of John 18:31-33 on one side and part of John 18:37-38 on the other:
P52_recto.jpg
P52_verso.jpg
 
Upvote 0

CaspianSails

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2019
579
302
65
Washington DC metro area
✟27,746.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not the division that is the flaw here. They are for convenience. It is the laziness of the reader who does not read the context of the passage. We cannot blame the form of the particular layout for not considering passages in their entirety.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You say the KJV is flawed., yet you didn't prove it to us.
You only proved it to yourself.

Here is what you can do with a KJV.
Use it to correct all other versions.

For example....In the NIV....it says...>"He who was manifested in the Flesh".
So, get your KJV, and get the accurate translation... it says "God who was manifested in the Flesh".
1 Timothy 3:16

See how that works?
The KJV will clean up all other versions if you use the KJV to filter them.

That is ridiculous! The King James is not, I repeat, not the source of the Bible; it is a translation only, and it is filled with translation errors.

Here is just one (dangerous) example...

Romans 8:1 (KJV): "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Romans 8:1 (NET, NIV, and many others): "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." => There is no condition added as there is in the KJV. <=

Here are the translators notes: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace."
 
Upvote 0