Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[His_disciple3]

Yes, the NKJV did correct several of the KJV errors including the two that I cited earlier. I use several bibles including the KJV and NKJV. My go to bible is the NASB. I have issues with the NIV though simply because it is a paraphrase bible but many people seem to like it. I would not use it for in depth study though.

the NKJV did not fix the error there was no error to fix, I have not done any research on the NKJB, it is My pastors study Bible although He agrees that the KJB is the Best. most folks that have research the NKJV says it is the worst running neck and neck with the NIV as the two worst, the problem with the NKJV is that they as well as most if not all modern bibles used different manuscripts, and one of them was the dead sea scrolls, which are great because they are the oldest , not really the problem with the dead sea scrolls, was they were so old that huge chunks of scriptures were missing and the translators used other manuscripts to fill in the missing gaps, thus come in the Alexandria text/ the corrupt text that was not allowed in the KJB were now also allowed to Taint the KJB resulting in the NKJB. alittle leaven will leaven the whole lump,

if you want you can bring up where the KJB says that a lady had no children and in another part of scriptures it said she had children I will explain that one for you also, from scriptures I might add, or one king was said to take the throne at two different ages I can explain that one also, oh butb please don't tell me they put a period in the wrong place and makes the verse read wrong as the enemy came upon us like a flood, for the enemy can come upon us like a flood. or maybe you didn't even know about these , for I can't believe that you didn't know that a turtle can be a bird also,

 

[Epiphoskei]

the NKJV did not fix the error there was no error to fix, I have not done any research on the NKJB, it is My pastors study Bible although He agrees that the KJB is the Best. most folks that have research the NKJV says it is the worst running neck and neck with the NIV as the two worst, the problem with the NKJV is that they as well as most if not all modern bibles used different manuscripts, and one of them was the dead sea scrolls, which are great because they are the oldest , not really the problem with the dead sea scrolls, was they were so old that huge chunks of scriptures were missing and the translators used other manuscripts to fill in the missing gaps, thus come in the Alexandria text/ the corrupt text that was not allowed in the KJB were now also allowed to Taint the KJB resulting in the NKJB. alittle leaven will leaven the whole lump,

if you want you can bring up where the KJB says that a lady had no children and in another part of scriptures it said she had children I will explain that one for you also, from scriptures I might add, or one king was said to take the throne at two different ages I can explain that one also, oh butb please don't tell me they put a period in the wrong place and makes the verse read wrong as the enemy came upon us like a flood, for the enemy can come upon us like a flood. or maybe you didn't even know about these , for I can't believe that you didn't know that a turtle can be a bird also,

In the first place, your bias is showing. If you admitted your ideology belonged to a small, marginalized corner of Christianity, so be it. But you can't claim that most people who have studied the NKJV have concluded it's "the worst, running neck and neck with the NIV," given most people who have researched the issue have concluded there's nothing wrong with either of them.

This is how fringe theories spread in the minds of those who haven't had enough education to properly appraise the validity of the theses being proffered. The ideological ringleaders create false narratives wherein only a select few members of a conspiracy and their dupes believe X, whereas most people who have actually done the research disbelieve it - when in fact most people who have done research don't buy the conspiracy theory.

Your second problem is that the DSS and the Alexandrian text type don't refer to the same works. The Alexandrian text is a New Testament text type, and the DSS are an Old Testament text type. You cannot fill in the latter from the former.

And, lastly, the DSS explicitly contradict the phrasing of the KJV in many places. Cf. I Sam 10:27-11:1.

In the KJV,

But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought no presents. But he held his peace. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee

In the DSS, the same text reads,

But some scoundrels said, “How can this fellow save us?” They despised him and brought him no gifts. Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and Reubenites severely. He gouged out all their right eyes and struck terror and dread in Israel. Not a man remained among the Israelites beyond the Jordan whose right eye was not gouged out by Nahash king of the Ammonites, except that seven thousand men fled from the Ammonites and entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.”

What happened to the longer text is clear. It begins and ends with the same letters in Hebrew. The scribe's attention wandered for some reason, and when he went to look for the place he stopped writing, he found the set of letters he had just written - but the wrong set from a few sentences later. He began writing from the second set of letters, instead of the first set, and thereby everything in between was lost. This is called a haplograph, and there isn't a Hebrew scholar alive who would contest that that's exactly what happened here. The KJV translated the wrong text and omitted a paragraph from the Bible.

 

[His_disciple3]

This is silly on three fronts. First of all, I don't know how many times you have to be told, this is not a textual issue - your TR or Byzantine texts say just the same thing. The idea that the scholars of the early modern era rejected the "Alexandrian text" is nonsense - look up the discovery date of all the papyri, the major Alexandrian and Western uncials - it's a patent lie that western scholars knew about these texts until recently, and that they ever rejected these texts after they were discovered. You're being deceived by KJVO propaganda. And the translators of the KJV language didn't even understand the rules governing Koine Greek - they translated the Bible as if it were a Classical Greek text.

Second, a concordance is not a lexicon. You're citing a book which simply gives a list of how a Greek word was translated by the KJV. We all agree, the KJV uses "when" to translate "ean." That is not an argument in its favor, that is a restatement of your thesis. You're begging the question.

Third, your If vrs Then dilemma is false. "If" is not the less certain version of "then." If is the conditional. You're trying to translate a conditional with something which is not a conditional. Your reading is not doctrinally incorrect, but the simple conditional is also not doctrinally incorrect, and is what the text actually says. And frankly, if you can't read the simple conditional without seeing it as implying doubt, you aren't qualified enough in English to read the KJV.

I will remind you of the reason we got on this tangent. You argued that an "if" in Matthew 18:13 implied that God may not find his sheep. The simple conditional implies no such thing, as its use in I John proves. You really can't have this both ways.

you know I am assuming that you are A christian, and being that. you really should be thankful for the 400 year old English Bible we have, instead of focusing on tearing it down, I am not sure where you get all your information, I believe it was you that said you didn't trust information from web sites, or is it just websites that don't agree with you that you have a problem with?

so I know you won't agree with this, but I post it for the others that are keeping up with information on this topic:



There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.

1) Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, which was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text. 2) Minority Text (Alexandrian Text) - is based mainly on just two manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph"). These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, but they disagree with each other!


The Minority Text
There are only a few bibles that are based on the Majority Text, such as the King James Bible and the Gideon's Bible. But almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".
The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Majority Text, they were called "better" than the Majority Text. This is not so. These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly. The reader is reminded that the Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6). Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.

​

 

[His_disciple3]

to whom it may concern here are some pictures of the dead sea scroll the most if not all modern day bibles are taken from because todays scholars, say they are the most accurate because they are the oldest to this day that we have but take note where chunks were missing they were filled in by different manuscripts including corrupt text, again I say a little leaven will leaven the whole lump

some do say that a pictures paints a thousand words, need I to say more???

 

[Epiphoskei]

Misinformation.

There are three major text types, possibly four: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and possibly Caesarean. Not two. The Byzantine, or "majority" text, is not even one text in specific, but rather, a family of different sub-text-types: Kx, Kr, K1, E, and Π.

And, again, the existence of a specific Alexandrian text family was unknown until the modern era, so whatever source is telling you it was "rejected" when it was unknown as such is lying.

 

[Epiphoskei]

to whom it may concern here are some pictures of the dead sea scroll the most if not all modern day bibles are taken from because todays scholars, say they are the most accurate because they are the oldest to this day that we have but take note where chunks were missing they filled inthe gaps with text including the alexandria / corrupt text;

some do say that a pictures paints a thousand words, need I to say more???

The Alexandrian Text is a New Testament Text. The DSS are Old Testament Texts. The DSS were not "filled in" by the Alexandrian text because there is no Alexandrian OT.

 

[Hentenza]

Here are some passages in the KJV were words have changed meaning over time. Some of these have opposite meanings now.

2 Thess. 2:7
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The meaning of let now is to allow while the meaning of let in the 17th century was to restrain. For those who only use the KJV, the ,meaning of this verse is opposite to what it should be.

Matthew 17:25
25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Prevented now means to not allow but back in the 17th century it means to come before. Jesus did not prevent Peter to come in but allow him to come in first.

Numbers 6:3
3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Moist back in the 17th century meant fresh while now it just means moist. Being moist does not a fresh grape makes.

Deut. 29:19
19And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:

In the 17th century imagination meant stubbornness while now it means forming a mental image that is not present, creativity. Those reading this verse now miss the meaning completely.

Luke 14:21
21So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

Back in the 17th century halt meant cripple but now it means to stop. I guess just bring in all that are maimed, blind, and are not moving. The meaning of the verse is again compromised.

Gen. 31:34
34Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.

Camels have furniture? Perhaps a chair or drawers? In the 17th century furniture could mean a saddle as used here by the KJV writers but today it just means, well, furniture.

Phil. 3:20
20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Mmmm...... ok, back then it could mean citizenship but now it just means to talk. I guess we'll just talk in heaven instead of being citizens of heaven. Another missed meaning in a verse unless you research the meaning of the 17th century.

Luke 10:41
41And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

Was Martha being careful? Nope. She was worried. In the 17th century careful could mean to be worried as it is used here, however, today it means to take good care of. Meaning not there, again.

There are many more.

 

[His_disciple3]

In the first place, your bias is showing. If you admitted your ideology belonged to a small, marginalized corner of Christianity, so be it. But you can't claim that most people who have studied the NKJV have concluded it's "the worst, running neck and neck with the NIV," given most people who have researched the issue have concluded there's nothing wrong with either of them.

This is how fringe theories spread in the minds of those who haven't had enough education to properly appraise the validity of the theses being proffered. The ideological ringleaders create false narratives wherein only a select few members of a conspiracy and their dupes believe X, whereas most people who have actually done the research disbelieve it - when in fact most people who have done research don't buy the conspiracy theory.

Your second problem is that the DSS and the Alexandrian text type don't refer to the same works. The Alexandrian text is a New Testament text type, and the DSS are an Old Testament text type. You cannot fill in the latter from the former.

And, lastly, the DSS explicitly contradict the phrasing of the KJV in many places. Cf. I Sam 10:27-11:1.

In the KJV,
In the DSS, the same text reads,
What happened to the longer text is clear. It begins and ends with the same letters in Hebrew. The scribe's attention wandered for some reason, and when he went to look for the place he stopped writing, he found the set of letters he had just written - but the wrong set from a few sentences later. He began writing from the second set of letters, instead of the first set, and thereby everything in between was lost. This is called a haplograph, and there isn't a Hebrew scholar alive who would contest that that's exactly what happened here. The KJV translated the wrong text and omitted a paragraph from the Bible.

you can't prove nothing you have said, you are throwing out a bunch of lies, you have raised youself above everyone else, and your truth is the only truth you can hear, you attack the very word of God, I have shown pictures not just something that I have made up of blundering words, but proof of pictures how accurate your dead sea scrolls even could have hoped to be were only as good as the other manuscripts that were used to fill in the gap , yeah I will agree they are the oldest dated, but probably the worst condictioned also, and along with the condiction they were in how much of the dead sea scrolls are in your modern day bibles, you raise yourself above translators they don't know what they were doing but You do, according to you, you are smarter than me you are smarter than any translator that has ever been, doesn't the Bible say something about a halty spirit and pride, oh never mind looking it up you will just twist that one also!

 

[His_disciple3]

Here are some passages in the KJV were words have changed meaning over time. Some of these have opposite meanings now.

2 Thess. 2:7
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The meaning of let now is to allow while the meaning of let in the 17th century was to restrain. For those who only use the KJV, the ,meaning of this verse is opposite to what it should be.

Matthew 17:25
25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Prevented now means to not allow but back in the 17th century it means to come before. Jesus did not prevent Peter to come in but allow him to come in first.

Numbers 6:3
3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Moist back in the 17th century meant fresh while now it just means moist. Being moist does not a fresh grape makes.

Deut. 29:19
19And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:

In the 17th century imagination meant stubbornness while now it means forming a mental image that is not present, creativity. Those reading this verse now miss the meaning completely.

Luke 14:21
21So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

Back in the 17th century halt meant cripple but now it means to stop. I guess just bring in all that are maimed, blind, and are not moving. The meaning of the verse is again compromised.

Gen. 31:34
34Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.

Camels have furniture? Perhaps a chair or drawers? In the 17th century furniture could mean a saddle as used here by the KJV writers but today it just means, well, furniture.

Phil. 3:20
20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Mmmm...... ok, back then it could mean citizenship but now it just means to talk. I guess we'll just talk in heaven instead of being citizens of heaven. Another missed meaning in a verse unless you research the meaning of the 17th century.

Luke 10:41
41And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

Was Martha being careful? Nope. She was worried. In the 17th century careful could mean to be worried as it is used here, however, today it means to take good care of. Meaning not there, again.

There are many more.

so how does man changing the meanings of words, discredit the Holy Word of God????
My prayer for you would be that your eyes will be opened one day that you can see that you attack the very Word of God, and in doing so you fulfill romans 1 they change an incorruptable God into a corruptable one. why do we need atheist and devils to attack and discredit the Holy Word of God we have enough within the Body doing that, I have already shown you how little yoiu know about the english language, you didn't even know the Bible was correct to call a bird a turtle so who should take any thought of what you have said in any of this post? it is just a meer slander against the Holy Word of God

 

[Hentenza]

so how does man changing the meanings of words, discredit the Holy Word of God????
My prayer for you would be that your eyes will be opened one day that you can see that you attack the very Word of God, and in doing so you fulfill romans 1 they change an incorruptable God into a corruptable one. why do we need atheist and devils to attack and discredit the Holy Word of God we have enough within the Body doing that, I have already shown you how little yoiu know about the english language, you didn't even know the Bible was correct to call a bird a turtle so who should take any thought of what you have said in any of this post? it is just a meer slander against the Holy Word of God

I am not attacking the word of God. I am attacking your fallacious arguments. Those that fall into the KJVO fallacy usually are blind to the truth of what the word of God actually is and the tremendous evangelical capabilities that it has. One has to understand the words before they are of any value and, as I have shown you, many of the words in the KJV are no longer understandable in this day and age. God gave us His word over 2000 years ago and it was not in English.

BTW- You did not reply to any of the word issues that I posted. Why is that?

 

[His_disciple3]

The Alexandrian Text is a New Testament Text. The DSS are Old Testament Texts. The DSS were not "filled in" by the Alexandrian text because there is no Alexandrian OT.

, there were corrupt text in the Hebrews manuscripts also. i did this way to show that you would jump to the wrong conclusion and assume i was getting the two testaments mixed up, thank you for proving my point, doesn't your modern day bible have an old testament as well as a new testament????

 

[His_disciple3]

Yes, the NKJV did correct several of the KJV errors including the two that I cited earlier. I use several bibles including the KJV and NKJV. My go to bible is the NASB. I have issues with the NIV though simply because it is a paraphrase bible but many people seem to like it. I would not use it for in depth study though.

i am not denying that the nkj changed things from the KJB, I am just saying that they were errors to begin with, only errors in the eyes of the beholder, do you think that judas would have been given a chance to drink the blood of Jesus. and if not then why would Jesus say as you say it should be. all of you drink, for with Jesus when He said all He just wasn't referring to the elect!!!! He meant all!!!

 

[His_disciple3]

In the first place, your bias is showing. If you admitted your ideology belonged to a small, marginalized corner of Christianity, so be it. But you can't claim that most people who have studied the NKJV have concluded it's "the worst, running neck and neck with the NIV," given most people who have researched the issue have concluded there's nothing wrong with either of them.

This is how fringe theories spread in the minds of those who haven't had enough education to properly appraise the validity of the theses being proffered. The ideological ringleaders create false narratives wherein only a select few members of a conspiracy and their dupes believe X, whereas most people who have actually done the research disbelieve it - when in fact most people who have done research don't buy the conspiracy theory.

Your second problem is that the DSS and the Alexandrian text type don't refer to the same works. The Alexandrian text is a New Testament text type, and the DSS are an Old Testament text type. You cannot fill in the latter from the former.

And, lastly, the DSS explicitly contradict the phrasing of the KJV in many places. Cf. I Sam 10:27-11:1.

In the KJV,
In the DSS, the same text reads,
What happened to the longer text is clear. It begins and ends with the same letters in Hebrew. The scribe's attention wandered for some reason, and when he went to look for the place he stopped writing, he found the set of letters he had just written - but the wrong set from a few sentences later. He began writing from the second set of letters, instead of the first set, and thereby everything in between was lost. This is called a haplograph, and there isn't a Hebrew scholar alive who would contest that that's exactly what happened here. The KJV translated the wrong text and omitted a paragraph from the Bible.

again when i am wrong i am wrong i meant to say that most folk i know that have studied the nkjv, say that it is right there with the niv as being the worst!

 

[Hentenza]

i am not denying that the nkj changed things from the KJB, I am just saying that they were errors to begin with, only errors in the eyes of the beholder, do you think that judas would have been given a chance to drink the blood of Jesus. and if not then why would Jesus say as you say it should be. all of you drink, for with Jesus when He said all He just wasn't referring to the elect!!!! He meant all!!!

lol The KJV has a rather large calvinistic bent to it. You have not noticed?

 

[His_disciple3]

Misinformation.

There are three major text types, possibly four: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and possibly Caesarean. Not two. The Byzantine, or "majority" text, is not even one text in specific, but rather, a family of different sub-text-types: Kx, Kr, K1, E, and Π.

And, again, the existence of a specific Alexandrian text family was unknown until the modern era, so whatever source is telling you it was "rejected" when it was unknown as such is lying.

this is from a websit that actually brags on the Alexandria text and this is what is says about the time, why don't you ever post links supporting the so called facts you are always giving out????


3) The Alexandrinus Codex (4th to 5th centuries) was the first of all the great uncials to come into the hands of modern scholars. It was obtained in Alexandria and sent as a present to the king of England (1628) by Cyrellus Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus uncials with many other most important Bible manuscripts-Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and Syriac-came from Alexandria.

 

[Epiphoskei]

you can't prove nothing you have said, you are throwing out a bunch of lies, you have raised youself above everyone else, and your truth is the only truth you can hear, you attack the very word of God, I have shown pictures not just something that I have made up of blundering words, but proof of pictures how accurate your dead sea scrolls even could have hoped to be were only as good as the other manuscripts that were used to fill in the gap , yeah I will agree they are the oldest dated, but probably the worst condictioned also, and along with the condiction they were in how much of the dead sea scrolls are in your modern day bibles, you raise yourself above translators they don't know what they were doing but You do, according to you, you are smarter than me you are smarter than any translator that has ever been, doesn't the Bible say something about a halty spirit and pride, oh never mind looking it up you will just twist that one also!

I'm just telling you what every modern scholar will tell you. You're the one raising an yourself over the entire field of textual critics and historians.

There is no OT "Alexandrian" text, and when the DSS differ from the Masoretic and thus the King James, that means the actual text, and not the presumed material in the ellipses differs from the KJV text. There's a specific convention regarding material inserted from ellipses - it's marked by being placed in brackets in translation. You can't tell me that when I read a dead sea scroll that I'm reading edited texts without requiring the entire field of textual criticism be engaged in massive conspiracy.

 

[His_disciple3]

lol The KJV has a rather large calvinistic bent to it. You have not noticed?

I think the calvinist has put their bent to the KJB what do you think?
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
KJV

sure don't sound like any calvinist I ever heard! again a lie from your mouth against the HOLY WORD OF GOD, and the sad thing is you think it is funny

 

[Epiphoskei]

this is from a websit that actually brags on the Alexandria text and this is what is says about the time, why don't you ever post links supporting the so called facts you are always giving out????


3) The Alexandrinus Codex (4th to 5th centuries) was the first of all the great uncials to come into the hands of modern scholars. It was obtained in Alexandria and sent as a present to the king of England (1628) by Cyrellus Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus uncials with many other most important Bible manuscripts-Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and Syriac-came from Alexandria.

I don't particularly care what the internet has to say about matters. I have a degree in ancient history. Not only have I had courses on all this, but I know what the standard of scholarly work is, and this is not it. Think peer reviewed literature from modern text-critics.

Alexandrinus is one text. The Alexandrian text is a text family that was not known as a family until well after the KJV was translated. The fact that the earliest texts were known does not mean they were recognized as a text family.

 

[Hupomone10]

well according to your bibical knowledge which one would be true "IF JESUS COMES BACK" or " WHEN JESUS SHALL APPEAR" in 1 John 3:2, even man made the dictionary, man made the concordance that says ean means if. man made my strong's concordance that says ean can also mean "when". but only Epiphoskei's text and concordance is correct according to the them that is. I don't know if I have ever read anywhere that dictionaries and concordances are inspired by God,

1. According to my knowledge of honesty in communication, we translate things according to the word it means, not according to the word we think it ought to say. That's just those who wish to be honest.

2. I don't know if I have ever read anywhere that the KJV translation is inspired by God, especially since as has been pointed out the KJV translators diligently compared and revised previous translations.

What you say about dictionaries and concordances is as ridiculous as saying the translation of KJV is inspired; but then again you might not see the ridiculousness of that, hence your inference that someone might think dictionaries/concordances inspired.

You are helping me see some insight into this argument even without even studying it. However, it's always possible that there's a better argument and more honest one than you're presenting. I'll try to keep an open mind in spite of this.

God bless and aid you in achieving objectivity,
H.

 

[His_disciple3]

what amazes me is that God has said that He would preserve His Word, and No body that I know of has a problem with the fact that God through the Holy Spirit inspired His every Word through the Men of the Bible to be penned by man, But the Amazement is that God can not inspire men to translate that Word, into other languages!! simply amazing, I wonder what happened to the God, that Sarah said " was there anything too hard for God". I guess we don't have the same God as of yesterday, for according to the most denominations it is too hard for Him to give us An inspired English Bible without Error, because man has had our hands in it. HELLO!!! the men of the Bible who penned the orginal scripts was man also! then on the other hand there were false prophets that claim to have spoken the Word of God, so not every word that has been put in a manuscript is the Holy Word of God. so how can we determined which one would be? maybe by His Promise that He would preserve His Word, so would a manuscript that was missing for thousands of years as the dead sea scrolls, with people in the time period, being without the Holy Word of God? or a alexandria text that was missing for around 1300 years be from God , if So then Those that live and died in that time people missed out on the Promises of God about preserving His Holy Word, so You will never convince me that God has lied to some at some time period over the years, no matter how much anyone knows about History or the Greek and English languages, as I have said before I will trust God over man every time, an if this makes me sound stupid then stupid I will be!!! So if the 400 year old Bible is the wrong one and if it does not agree with in every area with the new right ones then God has lied and for around 340 years between 1611 and 1950's man that lived and died in that time period did Not Have His Holy Word, and All my friends in Christ SORRY, BUT THIS JUST CAN"T BE, and if they had the right one, between 1611 and the 1950's as God has promised then the new ones just can't Be the Holy Word of God? this is fact that you can't wiggle around!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!!!!