NothingIsImpossible
Well-Known Member
You do realize though your basically saying he was not there, but your forgetting you were not either. So to some degree you cannot also claim KJV is what you think of it then.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do realize though your basically saying he was not there, but your forgetting you were not either. So to some degree you cannot also claim KJV is what you think of it then.Time Machine. Were you truly there to know? Surely not.
You do realize though your basically saying he was not there, but your forgetting you were not either. So to some degree you cannot also claim KJV is what you think of it then.
Most of the people think they themselves, their language, their country and their ideas are special. Certainly more special than their neighbors or heaven forbid foreigners.
Usually there is no basis to this apart from personal perspective.
The scriptures teach us all we need to know for following the Lord.
Time Machine. Were you truly there to know? Surely not.
Sorry, that is not true. There is a difference between biblical Hebrew and Greek and conversational Hebrew and Greek. Those languages have changed, too, in the same way as all other languages.Every language has changed except Hebrew and Greek, that's what the bible was written in, the English language is still changing.
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?
The only English version that I can use for Scripture memorization is the KJV. And for using the Scriptures as lyrics for short choruses, I've mainly done that with the KJV, with some moderate success using the NASB, and to a lesser degree the NIV. Committees that do Bible translations need musicians and poets! Concerning the KJV, I've had parallel experiences with the Castilian- Spanish Reina Valera version. In fact, in my probably biased opinion, the Reina Valera language soars as much over the KJV as the KJV does in beauty over other English versions.
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?
Assumptions are made. Dating methods are based on assumptions. How do you really know they are older? Did you test the documents yourself? Are these testing methods 100% accurate? But lets say the documents are older, that does not mean they are correct just because they are older documents. The Word of God could still be corrupted back in older times as it can be today. Just because something is older does not mean it cannot be corrupted or altered.
The true way to determine the truth is to not to look to Historical Science but to look to Observational Science. That would mean that we test a document or documents of how they exist now. We do a fruits test. Which Word of God stands above the rest and appears to be of divine origin? Which Bibles appears to teach false and evil things ever so slightly or subtely?
But in your world view: It sounds like you are saying there is no perfect Word of God that we can trust 100%. You think God's work can have errors or flaws within it. If this is the case: Well, that does not make sense because God is perfect in everything He does.
Well, that does not make sense because God is perfect in everything He does.
You're certainly making a lot out of one word that appeared in my post. As to why I called the KJV "special," I spent several paragraphs explaining what is so special about it--and your particular slant on the subject wasn't any part of it.Most of the people think they themselves, their language, their country and their ideas are special. Certainly more special than their neighbors or heaven forbid foreigners.
Usually there is no basis to this apart from personal perspective.
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?
You're certainly making a lot out of one word that appeared in my post. As to why I called the KJV "special," I spent several paragraphs explaining what is so special about it--and your particular slant on the subject wasn't any part of it.
Good post! You are correct and the only way to find the "truth" is to examine the manuscripts we have available today: The Siniaticus, the Vatinicanus, Alexandrinus and many others which will display the true word that was implicated. We must do away with the antiquaited versions, NKJ, KJV, and research the actual meaning that was to be applied. If we get rid of superstitions of a literal "Satan" and realize that the "lust of the flesh" are what destroys our faith, not some outdated "fallen angel" which does not even exist. The mythology of dual pagan gods have led people astray and is the factor of misleading dogma put out by anti Christians who are not keeping an open mind. James 1:13-14 See my Avatar!The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate. The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1609. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.
You can explain everything wrong as still being part of God’s perfect plan so why worry about it.
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1609. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.
While I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English sometimes, the real problem with the Modern Translations is that they:
(a) Add the devil's name within them so as to replace the Lord, and God's people.
(b) Remove the clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
(c) Remove the full reference to the Condemnation in Romans 8:1.
(d) Remove "Through his blood" in Colossians 1:14.
(e) Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want God's people to know how to cast him out.
Modern Translations are NOT more accurate. That is just non-sense. A basic side by side comparison of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations shows that the Modern Translations:
1. Place the devil's name within them.
2. Eliminate the one and only clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
3. Eliminate the full teaching on the "Condemnation" in Romans 8:1.
4. Eliminate "through the blood" in Colossians 1:14.
5. Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want you to know how to truly cast him out.
There are tons more perversions in the Modern Translations that are too numerous to mention here.
But these 5 should give you pause if you care about what God's Word says.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?