[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: KING JAMES VS NEW KING JAMES THEY CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE! Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Jan 19, 2015 Author: David W. Daniels Post Date: 2015-01-19 18:43:40 by _V_ Keywords: None Views: 42251 Comments: 105 Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James? Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words! I have gotten more letters on this question than almost any other. This is very important to those who want God's truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the "New King James." Changed Words Means Changed Meanings We know that Bible versions disagree on how to translate certain words. Here is an example: Is Jesus God's "Son" or God's "servant"? In Acts 3:26, the NKJV calls Jesus God's "Servant." The KJV correctly calls Him God’s "Son." These are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Which one is He? If He is God's servant, so are you and I. If He is God's Son, then we all need to listen to what He said, because He is God! Changed words like this make a great deal of difference in how we understand a passage. Loss of "thee" and "thou" Please decide what God is saying to Moses: "And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV) It looks like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws." But look carefully at the accurate King James: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. "Ye" and "you" mean more than one person. "Thee," "thou," "thy," "thine," "doeth," "hast," etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The "y" is plural. The "t" is singular. Isn't that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). What Jesus said was, "Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again." This is very important. Not only Nicodemus needed to be saved. But everybody, including him, needed to be born again. That's why Jesus used the plural. But there is more of a problem than the thousands of times "thee" and "thou" are removed from God's words. What does a word mean? This is very important, as you shall see. Go to Gehenna? The NKJV claims to be "more accurate" because it leaves untranslated words like "Gehenna," "Hades" and "Sheol." What do they mean? You will know from the King James the exact meaning: "hell." We know what that means. Meaning is very important. When's the last time you heard someone told to "Go to Gehenna"? Which is correct? The NKJV consistently uses terms that don't mean the same as in the King James Bible. Here are some examples: King James Version New King James Version 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God" "peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV) Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" "Reject a divisive man" (like the NIV) 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil." "Abstain from every form of evil." (like the NAS, RSV and ASV) Isaiah 66:5 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." [This means that the LORD shall appear, which shall occur at the Second Coming of Christ.] "Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed." (Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted from this scripture.) Both translations cannot be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong. No matter how you slice it, the NKJV does not have the same meaning as the accurate King James Bible. 2. Changed Affections There is a lot of evidence that the translators and publishers did not believe God preserved His words. Thomas Nelson Publishers The NKJV was translated and is printed under the watchful eye of Thomas Nelson Publishers. Here is part of a timeline they published. 1969 Sam Moore purchases Thomas Nelson Publishers, vowing to return it to its once proud place among the leading publishers of the world. 1976 Nelson initiates the creation of a new Bible translation--The New King James Version. 1980's Nelson reclaims its place as a premier publisher of Bibles and Christian Books, expands into international markets, and establishes Markings® as Nelson's Gift division. It is clear the NKJV made Thomas Nelson Publishers a lot of money. Did a King James-type Bible renew their hearts to God? Note the following facts: They are also the publishers of the American Standard Version, the American revision of Westcott and Hort's perverted English Revised Version. They are also the publishers of the Revised Standard Version, the revision of the American Standard. To this day they continue to sell at least six Bible perversions. The NKJV was just one moneymaker that helped Nelson "reclaim its place" as a major publisher. The NKJV repeats the lie that "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." In fact, there are two: the perverted Alexandrian line that was continued by the Roman Catholic religion and the preserved, apostolic, Antiochian line that progresses from the Christians at Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to our precious King James Bible. The New King James translators Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association reveals a little-known fact: "The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?" Not "the real thing" What Mr. Reynolds points out is very important to understand. There were basically two groups of translators working on the NKJV. One half believed that the perverted 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, from which came the Roman Catholic Bibles and the modern perversions, were better than the manuscripts behind the King James. The other group believed the thousands of manuscripts supporting the King James were better. This is a big problem: No one believed that they held God's words in their hands, only a "better" or "worse" text! The translators believed they had something close, but not an accurate Bible. It is a sad thing when a Bible translator doesn't even believe he has God's words in his hands. It sounds like they don't believe God kept His promise: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31) Perhaps that is why some of them had no problem working on other perversions, both before and after working on the NKJV. This is so unlike the 54+ Bible men who faithfully translated the King James Bible from preserved manuscripts of God's words. The difference between the King James and the "New" King James is the difference between day and night. Compromising God's Words Many Christians are discovering the miracle of God's words in English. But the enemy has tried to insert a monkey-wrench: the NKJV. Pastors approve it, "scholars" promote it, but the NKJV is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New King James is just a compromise between the liberal, perverted Bible versions floating around and the rock-solid, accurate and preserved words of God, the King James Bible. Brothers and sisters, don't settle for anything less than God's words Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-8) not displayed.       .       .       . #9. To: _V_ (#0) "And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV) It looks like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws." But look carefully at the accurate King James: Totally changes the meaning. That is why I stick with the King James version. I don't even get why they can get away with calling it the new King James version. King James had absolutely nothing to do with it. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-19   23:19:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: redleghunter (#8) The NKJV was the adopted English version of the NT selected for the OSB. OSB- Oriented Strand Board? A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-19   23:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Pericles, TooConservative, Soso, GarySpFc (#3) For the Christian West the long debate has been the battle of primarily the Alexandrian texts vs. the Byzantine. I know TC and Gary have posted much on this in the past so maybe they will tune in. As a primer below is a short introduction with a link to the full piece: Basic Facts About Manuscripts There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible. These have been divided into four hypothetical “text types.” There are two main text types we need to be concerned with. These are the Byzantine text type, which was prevalent around Antioch, and the Alexandrian text type, which was prevalent around Alexandria, Egypt. There are a couple of other text types, the Caesarean and the Western, which seem to be a combination of these two other text types, but these are not important as we know they are derivatives of the other two types. The vast majority of manuscripts, perhaps up to 95% of all manuscripts known, are of the Byzantine text type, which is therefore referred to today as the “majority text.” These are all “late manuscripts”, the majority of them having been produced after 600AD. Of the four text types, the Byzantine type is the largest text, meaning it has the most words. The oldest manuscripts we have are all Alexandrian in nature. Of all known manuscripts, perhaps 5% reflect this text type. The two best examples of Alexandrian manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two complete copies of the Bible in Greek, which were copied during the fourth century. But there are earlier manuscripts to be found, not complete Bibles but fragments thereof, stretching all the way back into the 200's and earlier. These earlier manuscripts also universally support the Alexandrian text type. The Alexandrian text type stopped appearing in the Greek texts in the 700's after a long period of tapering off. More "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   23:31:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#10) Orthodox Study Bible "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   23:31:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: A K A Stone (#0) Forgot to ping you to this: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=37166&Disp=11#C11 "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   23:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: redleghunter, Pericles, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#11) The Alexandrian text type stopped appearing in the Greek texts in the 700's after a long period of tapering off. Why was that, especially if they were the older of the two? SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   23:34:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#4) In what language did God converse...? In the languages they all understood. If they didn't understand what God was communicating, then they could not write it down. For Moses that would be the original Hebrew. Later the Aramaic and Greek. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Jesus most likely spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He may have had a short conversation with Pilate in Latin (if you believe Mel Gibson). "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   23:39:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: SOSO, Pericles, Orthodoxa, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#14) Why was that, especially if they were the older of the two? Yet according to the linked piece I provided they were only 5% of the 5,000 or so manuscripts known. Which breaks into two schools of thought. The first being the oldest is better (Alexandrian) and the other being the better manuscripts are the ones copied more (Byzantine). "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   23:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: _V_ (#0) Stop the presses, we have anoher entrant. New Cooler Edition Rick James Version Revised Liberal Edition Revised Neocon Edition Bible 2 The Torah consists of five books: Gentle Sis. God, lacking anything more sensible to do with himself, mashes some quarks together and creates the universe. All goes well until the first humans, Adam and Steve, decide it's wrong to go naked, have fun, or make their own choices. Generations later, Noah floods his basement while trying to invent animal crackers, causing a worldwide chain reaction. An attempt to create the Babelfish program fails when no two people can agree on the same programming language. Abraham stops taking his medication and hears voices telling him to move to Canaan, bang his Egyptian maidservant, lop off the good bit of his son's penis, and other crazy stuff. Sarah draws the line at child sacrifice and has him committed. Jacob and sons invent organized crime, excelling at protection rackets (involving foreskins) and slave trading, even volunteering their own brother Joseph. Seeing that his legitimate agriculture business is doing well, they too go straight and join Joseph in Egypt--the first mistake in Jewish history. Eggs 'R' Us. Pharaoh founds the first international discount store chain, recruits the Israelites as employees, then forbids them to unionize, receive benefits, or leave the store at night. Moses and Aaron, having seen Norma Rae numerous times, defy Pharaoh by staging ten strikes. Tired of the bad publicity, Pharaoh sends the Israelites out of Egypt, although that wasn't what they were after. Moses hears of good investment opportunities in Canaan and bids his people be patient as they set off, subsisting on Manischewitz from the sky. Meanwhile, God remembers he's supposed to be the star of this whole shindig and stages a dazzling comeback with the revelation of the Ten Suggestions. Suffering shin splits from all that walking, the Israelites create a Golden Calf Muscle as their new god, but Moses, having too much invested in his Monotheism Money Market fund, orders it destroyed. Levity Cuss. Finally, after all these boring stories, we get a whole book of the good stuff: laws. Some examples: Thou shalt not eat pork, except at a Chinese restaurant. If a man contracteth leprosy, the priest shall lead him outside the camp, crying "Mr. Clean! Mr. Clean!" until he getteth better. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sheep. If a man lieth with another man, they must both help organize the Pride parade. Half of thy holy days shall be packed into three weeks, and they shall always fall on weekdays, causing thy Gentile boss to hate thee for requesting so much time off. Number Nine, Number Nine. All hell breaks loose. The Israelites demand Dan Quayle to eat. Moses dispatches twelve corporate headhunters to Canaan, and all but two falsely report that the Canaanites would rather receive welfare, drink beer and churn out kids than work. The Jerusalem Stock Exchange crashes as a result, and God bars the Israelites from investing for forty years. Korach Inc. attempts a hostile takeover of Moses and Aaron Ltd., but is swallowed by litigation. Moses decides to stay in the desert when he strikes oil instead of water. The hippie troubador Balaam ingests some bad acid and swears he can hear his ass talking. Do Her off of Me. Moses, now a wealthy oil tycoon, gives his people some final financial advice and Canaanite economic forecasts. He appoints a new CEO, Joshua, and with a cry of "So long, suckers!" climbs up to his retirement villa on Mount Nebo, where he drops dead of a heart attack. Serves him right, the show-off, doing all that climbing at the age of 120. Since the nineteenth century, scholars have generally attributed the Torah to God, with Moses as his inerrant stenographer. This theory, however, is utter heresy. Every devout Jew and Christian knows that four source documents, written entirely by humans, lie behind the text as we know it: J, for Just Kidding, consists of all the passages in which God reneges on his word, such as the binding of Isaac (who actually enjoyed being tied up, thank you), and the promises of a land filled with milk and honey (land of dried-up falafel, more like). E, for Ecstasy, includes those sections seemingly composed under the influence, such as the splitting of Red Skeleton and Aaron's staff turning into a trouser snake. P, for Pippy Longstocking, comprises all the content suitable for children. It is by far the smallest section, consisting only of the words "In the beginning." Some even question the age-appropriateness of the word "beginning." D, for Dull as Dishwater, is made up of every passage in which the most common word is "begat," "cubit," "tabernacle," or "white scaly flesh." In other words, the sections which Jewish children inevitably are assigned for their Bar or Bat Mitzvah, or those from which rabbis, ministers and priests always derive their sermons. Another theory posited by Church historian Eusebius states that the Torah was written by Plato. Contrary to popular belief, the original language of the Torah is neither Hebrew nor Latin nor Renaissance English, but Ebonics, the native tongue of Black Jesus. Because of widespread racism, few throughout history have deigned to learn this sacred language, making translations necessary. Popular translations include the Sepgooeygant (Pig Latin), the Tarbubblegum (Leet), and the Rick James (Otaku). None of these versions succeed in capturing the poetic cadence of the original. One example will suffice, from Gentle Sis Chapter 42, Verse 7, Amendment 200: Sepgooeygant: Ethay Ordlay aidsay otay Damay, Erilyvay outhay artay ondemnedcay. Tarbubblegum: Teh L0rd 5@|d 2 @d@m, D00d U R s0 pwned. Rick James: The Sensei said to Adam-chan, Baka, you are not sugoi. Original Ebonics: The Landlord said to Adam, You so busted, bitch. Jewish tradition divides the Torah into 613 portions of 50 chapters each. Every Sabbath, an entire portion is chanted in synagogue, unless the congregation is fidgety, hungry, or sleepy. If the congregation does get antsy, the Rabbi will try to take twice as long to gloat his power over the rest of the congregation. When the Rabbi is also fidgety though, he also rushes things. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Torah is never really chanted at all, but rather a bunch of off-key gibberish is chanted which sounds authentic. Nevertheless, the clergy do make a show of taking it from the Ark, kissing it, laying it on the lectern, undressing it, then saying, "Hey Torah, you were fantastic, but I've got an early meeting tomorrow so I gotta go. I'll call you." Aruchbay Tahay Donaiay Lohanueay Elechmay A-olamhay. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   23:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: A K A Stone (#9) I don't even get why they can get away with calling it the new King James version. King James had absolutely nothing to do with it. Which version of the KJV do you use? “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   23:54:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: redleghunter (#15) Jesus most likely spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Greek? What is he basis for thinking that? Who around Him spoke Greek? SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   0:00:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: GarySpFC (#18) https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration Recently a reader of the BSF web site sent this letter to me (and presumably to several of his friends as well): Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!” There you have it. A scholar of repute has spoken. Other critics have taken up the same whimpering cry. But is it true? No, it is not true. Furthermore, it is willfully deceptive, as I shall now demonstrate. First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it! From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better. Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted - TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times. BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times. AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times. LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times. YOU has been changed to YE 82 times. Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature! Now let’s do the math... By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150 (to be conservative) remaining changes. This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text. The remaining 150 changes from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes. For example... In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD. In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD. In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN. Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day. Indeed, the words of the Holy Ghost are very appropriate here - “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6 The question now arises, how then can Daniel Wallace and other enemies of God’s Word make a statement like the one he made above? If there have been only 421 changes from 1611 until today, how can Wallace et al say that there have been 100,000 changes? It’s very simple, and yet very insidious, my friends. Here is how Wallace et al attempt to justify their deception... You see, the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is printed in the ROMAN TYPE FACE! The King James Bible of 1611 was printed in the GOTHIC TYPE FACE! VIOLA!!! [sic] There you have it, friends. Changes in TYPE FACE are the “changes” that Wallace et al are referring to. And yet, Wallace clearly intended his reader to believe that the King James Bible of 1611 is significantly different than the King James of today. As usual, however, the facts don’t bear the critics out. The facts condemn the critics and expose their smoke-and-mirror shell game. Deceit is the only thing modern critics can traffic in, for the facts are so overwhelmingly against them that they have no other means by which to denigrate the Word of God. Conclusion: the FACT is that the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to the King James Bible of 1611. God has truly preserved his word in the Bible of the King James. Scott [last name wittheld from me] This writer made a very interesting argument. He had details and, though I would say that the tone of his letter was certainly less than charitable, I thought that the content needed some investigation. To begin with, I did not personally count 100,000 changes between the 1611 KJV and the modern reprints. But I did take the word from some reputable scholars on that score. Second, this gentleman’s own statistics show that the count of 100,000 could not possibly be attributable to font changes alone: if so, then there should be nearly 791,328 changes (according to this gentleman’s word-count of the total words in the KJV [a number which, by the way, may include part of the Apocrypha1]). Third, since this gentleman has included rather minor changes (which I also assumed to be part of the 100,000 changes)—specifically, “printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes” (though he considers these to be among the biggest of the 421 changes), we can proceed on his definition of an alteration. In particular, spelling standardization is the largest single group of changes made between 1611 and the modern era. How can we proceed with this comparison? I have on the wall in my study two leaves from the 1611 edition—the first edition—of the King James Bible. The following text, 2 Samuel 12:20-31, is part of a leaf from the 1611 printing of the KJV. There are a total of 362 words in these verses. This ought to be a good test-case for whether there are 421 total changes or 100,000 changes to the KJV in its nearly 400-year history. Only 421 changes to the KJV equals an average of one change per 1880 words. Therefore, we should expect to find none in these twelve verses, statistically speaking (or, more precisely, about one-sixth of one change). If, on the other hand, there are 100,000 changes to the KJV, that averages out to one out of nearly eight words (1:7.91328 is the precise ratio), or 45.745 words.2 Thus, if my statistics are correct, we should expect to find one or more instances per verse, on average, and a grand total in the double digits. If Scott’s statistics are correct, to find more than one or two would be disturbing, and to find even a dozen or more would show that his data are fundamentally incorrect. To be sure, this is hardly a scientific sampling; but at the same time since the two statistical models are so widely divergent from one another, we might expect to see either pattern emerge. The text that follows is a list of the verses in their ‘modern’ KJV version; beneath each verse is a catalog of the changes in that verse from the 1611 version to the latest KJV. At the end of this treatment will be a summary. A Comparison of the 1611 KJV with the ‘Modern’ KJV in 2 Samuel 12:20-31 (2 Samuel 12:20) Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. “apparell”“apparel” “owne”“own” “house;” “house,” (2 Samuel 12:21) Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. “diddest”“didst” “weepe”“weep” “alive,”“alive;” (2 Samuel 12:22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? “tell, whether”“tell whether” (2 Samuel 12:23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. “Wherefore”“wherefore” “Can”“can” “backe” “back” “goe” “go” “returne” “return” (2 Samuel 12:24) And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. “sonne”“son” (2 Samuel 12:25) And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD. “Prophet”“prophet” “Prophet,”“prophet;” “hee”“he” (2 Samuel 12:26) And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. “Rabbah,”“Rabbah” “tooke”“took” “royall”“royal” “citie”“city” (2 Samuel 12:27) And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters. “citie”“city” (2 Samuel 12:28) Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. “therefore,”“therefore” “citie”“city” “citie”“city” (2 Samuel 12:29) And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. “tooke”“took” (2 Samuel 12:30) And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. “tooke”“took” “kings”“king’s” “crowne”“crown” “head (the weight... stones)”“head, the weight...stones:” “gold,”“gold” “Davids”“David’s” “head, and” “head. And” “spoile”“spoil” “citie”“city” (2 Samuel 12:31) And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem. “sawes”“saws” “harrowes”“harrows” “yron”“iron” “yron”“iron” “passe”“pass” “brick=kilne”“brickkiln” “And thus”“and thus” Summary: of the 362 words in these twelve verses, the KJV has undergone 41 (forty-one) specific alterations. This averages out to one change per 8.83 words. This is just slightly less than one change per 7.91 words that I suggested was the average,3 but two hundred and thirty-seven times the number Scott suggested. To be sure, these changes are not particularly significant—but this has been admitted by both sides. What is not admitted by KJV-only folks is that the changes in most modern translations from the KJV (though on a verbal level are certainly greater than these) do not affect the essentials of the faith. My argument about the KJV is not that it has undergone radical changes in its long history (although, to be sure, there are some rather significant changes in the KJV in various places, as has been frequently pointed out in the books by Bruce, Lewis, Kubo, etc. [see below for a few examples]), but that it has undergone changes—100,000 of them. I submit that many of the changes that modern translations make are a mere updating of the language of the KJV, yet even these get condemned on the basis of altering the Word of God. On that same basis, for the KJV to change at all would mean that it, too, stands condemned. I am not, of course, arguing that this is the case; I am arguing that there is a great deal of selective evidence used by KJV-only advocates used to support their position. As the adage goes, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Appendix Three other points can be made here. First, Scott’s statistics are probably an amalgam of global changes and individual changes. That is, most of the 421 changes that he sees in the KJV are groups of changes. The change of ‘towards’ to ‘toward’ that occurs fourteen times is thus counted as one change. (In the five words he lists, the total number of changes comes out to 214 changes.) The problem with this is that we are led to believe that those 421 changes represent a specific percentage of the whole—or, in Scott’s words, “five one-hundredths of one percent.” That would only be true if there were 791,328 different words (as opposed to total words) in the KJV. Second, when Scott details a handful of changes that are indeed trivial, he says, “Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day.” As we mentioned above, that is not correct. Some of the changes in the KJV through the centuries have been fairly significant. The most famous blunder in the history of the King James Bible to come off the printing press was the 1631 edition. Robert Barker, the printer to the throne, inadvertently left out “not” in the seventh commandment! It was dubbed “the Wicked Bible” and Barker was fined 300 pounds for the error.4 Now, someone might object: “But that’s a printer’s error; that shouldn’t count.” There are two problems with this. First, errors creep into copies of a book, especially one that is nearly a million words long! Whether those errors crept into handwritten copies or printed copies, the principle is still the same. This, indeed, is one reason why the vast bulk of biblical scholars reject the KJV as the best translation available today and why they reject its underlying Greek text as being identical with the original: errors in the transmissional process have always taken place, and a great number of them are self-evident in the KJV tradition. Second, the problem is that the Bible that people have in their hands always have a small percentage of printing errors. Some of them are rather minor, some are major. But KJV-only advocates typically link inspiration to preservation to accessibility in such a way that logically makes printer’s errors a part of the package. Many, for example, wish to claim that inspiration did not cease with the death of the last apostle but continued on with the wording of the Greek text that Erasmus, the Roman Catholic scholar, published. To be sure, they usually state it in such a way that Erasmus did not invent certain wording, but rather rediscovered the original. But this argument won’t fly when we consider the last six verses of Revelation: since the Greek manuscript he was using lacked the last leaf, Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin into Greek, thereby creating seventeen textual variants in Rev 22:16-21that have no Greek support!5 That these variants were carried over in the KJV translation is problematic for KJV-only folks if they wish to deny that Erasmus was inspired. In particular, Rev 22:19 in the KJV reads: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Instead of “the book of life” the Greek text says “the tree of life.” No Greek MSS have “book of life” in this verse. Dr. Bruce Metzger points out that “The corruption of ‘tree’ into ‘book’ had occurred earlier in the transmission of the Latin text when a scribe accidentally miscopied the correct word ligno (‘tree’) as libro (‘book’).”6 Thus, a handwritten error that originated in Latin found its way into the first published Greek New Testament and consequently into the KJV. Yet this error is defended by KJV-only advocates as though it came from the pen of the apostle John himself. Why is it that this error is defended as inspired while other printing errors are not? Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek verb ´¹Å»¯¶É means “to strain out.” I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to “strain at.” Some scholars argue that “strain at” is simply an archaic rendering of “strain out.” But, even if this is the case, few in the KJV camp today would interpret this phrase as “strain out.”7 Here is a place in which the KJV needs to be updated so that people can understand what is meant. After all, if inspiration implies preservation, and preservation implies accessibility, accessibility of meaning is just as important as accessibility of words. (It is in fact for the reason of accessibility that the Bible must be translated afresh every fifty years or so.) Third, to put all this in perspective: There are approximately 25,000 changes made in the KJV of the New Testament from the original version of 1611. But in the underlying Greek text, the numbers are significantly smaller: there are approximately 5000 changes between the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used by the KJV translators) and the modern critical texts (used as the base for modern translations). That’s one-fifth the amount of changes that have occurred within the KJV NT itself. To be sure, many of these are fairly significant. But none of them affects any major doctrine and most of them are—like the internal changes within the KJV tradition— spelling changes. In the least, this puts the matter in a bit of a different light. Again, the reason I don’t think the KJV is the best translation today is basically threefold: (1) its underlying text is farther from the original than is the text used in modern translations; (2) its translation is archaic, with now over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611; (3) four hundred years of increased knowledge of the biblical world and languages have rendered many of the KJV renderings obsolete. All this is not to say that the KJV is a bad translation; I still think it stands as the greatest literary monument in the English language. And one can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV just as one can get saved reading the NIV. But if one is seeking clarity and accuracy, a modern translation is much preferred. 1 According to the software program, Accordance, the KJV has 585, 761 words in the 39 books of the Old Testament that are accepted by Protestants as canonical; the KJV has 180,376 words in the New Testament. This comes out to a total of 766,137 words, or 25,191 words shorter than the number provided by Scott. (There are 155,683 words in the Apocrypha, the group of books that was almost always printed as part of the KJV Bible until late last century.) The difference is probably due to a wrong count somewhere, the possible incorporating of English titles as part of the text of scripture, or the inclusion of some material from the Apocrypha. 2 Inexplicably, Scott speaks of valid changes as those that include words only. He does not mention punctuation changes as valid. Punctuation changes can, of course, be rather significant. In the least, they ought to be counted. One group of changes that I did not count involved the older English transposition of ‘u’ for ‘v’ and vice versa (e.g., in 2 Sam 12:21 the 1611 KJV reads seruants vnto while the modern font has servants unto. This group of changes would qualify for Scott’s ‘font theory’ that he assumes I embrace. Hence, it was deliberately left out of the count. 3 Actually, the ratios are even tighter: the leaf from the 1611 KJV that I looked at begins with “changed” in 12:20. The first twelve words of the text are on the preceding leaf. 41 changes out of 354 words equals a ratio of 1:8.63. 4 Cf. F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, third edition (Newy York: Oxford University Press, 1978) 108. 5 Even at 1 John 5:7-8 (the testimony about the Trinity in the KJV, known as the Comma Johanneum), in which Erasmus added the trinitarian formula in his third edition (1522) only because a Greek MS was made to order in 1520, virtually forcing Erasmus’ hand, the Dutch scholar did not copy out the Greek MS exactly. The reason is that the MS was a poor translation of the Latin, omitting the article before ‘Father,’ ‘Word,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ (since there is no article in Latin, the scribe simply transferred the Latin over into the Greek, without making the necessary adjustment). But Erasmus added the article for each member of the Trinity, creating yet three more variants without any Greek MS support. 6 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition (Stuttgart: Deustche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 690. 7 Oxford English Dictionary.s.v. “strain [verb],” 21: “It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions ... But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency.” Although this may be true, the OED adds quickly that “The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort.’” A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-20   0:02:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: A K A Stone (#9) That's why it's good to keep a KJV handy for those difficult verses. The "ye" in that passage does keep the passage clear. Yet our modern English uses "you" and "you". Which we are expected to apply in our reading comprehension. Modifiers are most important in modern English. But yes the KJV for such passages avoids any confusion. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   0:05:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#20) And you claim that all this is new to you:) Pants on fire, Bro. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   0:06:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: redleghunter (#21) That's why it's good to keep a KJV handy for those difficult verses. The "ye" in that passage does keep the passage clear. Yet our modern English uses "you" and "you". Which we are expected to apply in our reading comprehension. Modifiers are most important in modern English. But yes the KJV for such passages avoids any confusion. Thank God for MSWord version tracking. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   0:07:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: SOSO (#22) That is just a cut and paste I read. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-20   0:08:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: SOSO (#19) Greek? What is he basis for thinking that? Who around Him spoke Greek? Outside of Judea most Jewish communities were most likely Hellenistic. They were like that for a few hundred years. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire and business language. Jesus also preached in these Hellenistic influenced towns as in: From Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter." She could have spoke Aramaic but the area was Hellenized for quite a long time. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   0:12:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: redleghunter (#25) Thanks. I wonder if Mary and Joseph taught it to Him or if He just pciked it up in the schoolyard. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   0:15:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: SOSO (#26) Thanks. I wonder if Mary and Joseph taught it to Him or if He just pciked it up in the schoolyard. Well interestingly point. Some historians point to the account Jesus grew up in Nazareth which was near Sepphoris. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, which was a very small village near the Plain of Esdralon in Galilee. Although it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, there have been excavations revealing settlements in the area dating back to the Bronze Age, and tombs dating from the iron age to the Hasmonean period. The Biblical narrative reveals that Joseph and Mary lived here after their betrothal, in the announcement of Jesus' birth came to Mary here in Nazareth (Lk 1:26). Joseph made his living here as a carpenter possibly because it was near Sepphoris, a Hellenistic city being built by Herod Antipas. So a carpenter living not far from a good sized Hellenistic city with perhaps some business conducted Jesus may have grown up knowing some Greek or fluent in it. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   0:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, Vicmonte13 (#27) So a carpenter living not far from a good sized Hellenistic city with perhaps some business conducted Jesus may have grown up knowing some Greek or fluent in it. I believe that Jesus could speak and understand every language. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-20   0:36:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#28) I agree. I took a textual and historic approach to SOSO's inquiry. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   0:39:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: SOSO (#26) Thanks. I wonder if Mary and Joseph taught it to Him or if He just pciked it up in the schoolyard. Nazareth was only 3 miles from Sepphoris, a large Greek speaking city. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-20   1:23:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: A K A Stone (#20) D.A. Waite and Kirk DiVitro were friends of mine, and so I long ago heard their positions. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-20   2:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#20) 7 Oxford English Dictionary.s.v. “strain [verb],” 21: “It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions ... But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency.” Although this may be true, the OED adds quickly that “The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort.’” This is a surprisingly common occurrence in these various translations over the centuries. In many key passages, the translators will use a common rendering, not a strict translation from their chosen Greek textual authority. IOW, they adopt the readings that are familiar and traditional, generally out of fear that they will be criticized. Or so it seems. You can find this in the old translations like Tyndale, Bishops Bible, the Geneva, and the KJB itself. They tend to borrow renderings from each other. And even from the Vulgate. So for all their lecturing about the "best manuscripts", they still chicken out and use the accepted contemporary renderings on many foundational verses. It's an interesting but little-noted feature of these various translations. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   5:56:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: redleghunter, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#15) n what language did God converse...? In the languages they all understood. If they didn't understand what God was communicating, then they could not write it down. For Moses that would be the original Hebrew. Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   7:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#19) (Edited) esus most likely spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Greek? What is he basis for thinking that? Who around Him spoke Greek? "I am the ALPHA and OMEGA" Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   7:15:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Pericles (#34) "I am the ALPHA and OMEGA" But He spoke also in Aramaic at least once: "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   8:03:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: A Pole (#35) I did not imply Jesus spoke Greek on a regular basis - not at all. People of that period were multi-lingual - maybe Aramiac at home and Greek when working in the city or at the market, etc. Also, if Jesus lived in Egypt for his early years then Greek would have been one of the languages he spoke or had to be somewhat understanding of. It is clear he used Aramiac in his everyday life. We assume he could read Hebrew and he could speak or understand some Greek. Of course this gets tricky because as God Jesus has the supernatural ability to speak and understand any language so Jesus, when he was on earth chose to speak in a way that was as common to all in that region. No comment is made for Jesus speaking Latin in the NT. He speaks to Romans of course but the Romans could be speaking Greek to him as the default common tongue for that area and period. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   9:21:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: redleghunter, SOSO, A Pole, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#16) Why was that, especially if they were the older of the two? Yet according to the linked piece I provided they were only 5% of the 5,000 or so manuscripts known. Which breaks into two schools of thought. The first being the oldest is better (Alexandrian) and the other being the better manuscripts are the ones copied more (Byzantine). This was already solved by the Church. That was one of the reasons they ecumenical councils were called. The Church was underground for 500 years and in that time you had many confusions happening on text, etc - like a game of telephone. The Christian fathers of that time sifted through what they felt for sure was the correctly texts and what were not and made a decision. Revelations almost did not make it - and that shows they were very careful of what to include or not include. This has been the basis of the faith for 2,000 years - why change it? If you believe Jesus is God, than you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make a permanent error for 2,000 years until someone finds a scrap of manuscript to correct it? That is the problem with Sola Scriptura - live by the text and die by the text. Texts change. The Church is eternal. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   9:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Pericles, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#33) Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name. True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   9:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: redleghunter (#38) True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. True, unless it is YHVH. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   9:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Pericles (#37) This has been the basis of the faith for 2,000 years - why change it? If you believe Jesus is God, than you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make a permanent error for 2,000 years until someone finds a scrap of manuscript to correct it? That is the problem with Sola Scriptura - live by the text and die by the text. Texts change. The Church is eternal. You missed the point. I offered information on the various text types. IMO the reason the Byzantine has the most copies is because that is what was used most and circulated most. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   9:52:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: SOSO, Pericles, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, all (#1) Perhaps the answer to many questions, concerning the 'new' various versions, can be found in the prophetic writings of Amos. Amos 8:11-14: 11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst. 14 They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again. (KJV) I would suggest that the famine is of the true world of God, not the watered down versions we find today. Over the past 15 years, I have translated about 1/3 of the Bible, I can find, litterally no fault with the KJV. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   9:56:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: A K A Stone (#20) Excellent study, Thanks, Bob BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   10:08:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: TooConservative, redleghunter, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#39) True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. True, unless it is YHVH. I heard it translated/pronounced as YAHU at one point. http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm But God told Moses his name was "I Am". Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   10:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: redleghunter (#40) Actually, I wish the Christian debate about Bibles was on how the West should switch back to the Septuigent over the Masoratic. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   10:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: redleghunter (#40) You missed the point. I offered information on the various text types. IMO the reason the Byzantine has the most copies is because that is what was used most and circulated most. I have made that argument as well, noting that the Byzantine has a much wider distribution of its manuscripts across the ancient world. John Burgon, the old defender of the KJV, was excellent on these points. However, it has occurred to me that Egypt was a major literary center of the ancient world but it lost its library at Alexandria to fire and it suffered the complete Muslim conquest. So there were undoubtedly more copies of Alexandrian manuscripts that disappeared due to fire and Muslims. With Egypt gone as a heartland of publishing, the balance of manuscripts would naturally shift to the non-Muslim areas of the Mideast and to Rome and especially Byzantium. Of course, I still prefer the Byzantine Majority Texts. And I do believe that, over the years, we will discover much older Byzantine texts. This upcoming fragment of Mark could be such a fragment. At present, one of the very oldest papyrus fragments is a member of the Majority Text manuscript family. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   10:59:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: A Pole (#35) But He spoke also in Aramaic at least once: "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" Also "Ephaphtha!" And "Talitha, koum" Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: BobCeleste (#41) Over the past 15 years, I have translated about 1/3 of the Bible, I can find, litterally no fault with the KJV. Have you done any Old Testament translation? If so, has it been from the LXX Greek or Latin Vulgate, or has it been from the Hebrew Massoretic text? If from the Hebrew, I'm interested in hearing how you handle the Hebrew verb. I find this the most fascinating of all of the translation problems, because the Hebrew approach to action and time is so utterly foreign to the Indo- European approach (including even the modern Hebrew approach), that it affects the meaning of everything. Have you translated Genesis 1 from the Hebrew? Genesis 1 is probably the most important single piece of Biblical text for reading the rest of the Bible because so many words used throughout are literally DEFINED there by God, sort of like the way that lawyers define words at the front of contracts. I am really interested in speaking of the Hebrew verb in the context of Genesis 1, especially. So I'm hoping you'll tell me that Genesis 1 is indeed part of the 1/3rd you translated. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:20:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Pericles (#43) But God told Moses his name was "I Am". Or "I will be" Or "I was and still am and will be". Or "I live." Or "I will exist". Etc. The Hebrew imperfect is really hard to render into any Indo-European language without using multiple iterations, because it covers more than any single Indo-European verb tense. And "live", "exist" and "to be" are all the same word in Hebrew. The name YHWH can be translated into Greek or English as a sort of Venn diagram, a range of things. It's a feature of God to be ineffable. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (49 - 105) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com