KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnthebaptist

New member
Logos

That is not waht I said. I said:
I would say it's just the opposite.
We have poffered off a fear based salvation. We have taught that Jesus is the only way to escape an eternal burning hellfire.
Any coward would desire to escape that, and come forward for "salvation". He or she might not know the first thing about what it really means to be saved.
The passage you quoted from the Bible was spoken to the Pharisees. They believed in Hell
Notice Jesus did NOT say Hell is eternal..in fact, He didn't define it at all.

Charles Taze Russell also could not accept the reality of a eternal hell.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.

Jehovah's Witnesses try to make a distinction in the KJV between "everlasting" punishment" and "eternal life" But the same Greek word is used in both places. The Greek word is αιώνιος or aionios which means without end, never to cease, everlasting.

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell;
Mar 9:48 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:15 And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

These verses are clear to me that hell is eternal. You really get angry about Hell being eternal, you must have some insecurities about it. God dosen't want anyone to go to hell, therefore he sent His Son who died for us, that we could by faith recieve Him into our lives and have our sins forgiven and spiritual life.

Ok. So you think America was more moral in times past?
I think it was more dishonest.

That is because maybe you have a mis-understanding of American History. I think it is clear that in the fifties Americans were more moral. Compare movies and TV shows from the 50's with the present and see the contrast. Yes the sames sins were present in our society, but not as open and blatant as the are today. Many more people are living in immorality today.

How the hell did you get that tripe from what I said here.
My arguement in this post is agaist the pagan doctrine of eternal torment.
Sin is the problem. Eternal torment denies Christ's victory over sin more than any other false doctrine.

Any god who will permit sin such as cursing, blasphemy, and bitterness to endure eternally would be soft on sin. For only such a compromising deity would invent an endless hell of ceaseless cursing and blasphemy to co-exist with his holy nature forever.

Chrsit died so that man would not perish and go to hell. know one has to go to hell if they will turn to Christ. You really have a temper, do you feel that your language honors a holy God?

God Bless
John
 

brandplucked

New member
The Old Fashioned language of the King James Bible

The Old Fashioned language of the King James Bible

The Old-fashioned Language of the King James Bible

I’m always amazed when I hear a college educated person say, "I can’t understand the King James Bible with its "thee"s, "ye"s, and other archaic words."

In the area where I live there are many black Christian churches that still use the KJB. Generally speaking, they don’t enjoy the same degree of education as those who criticize the KJB but they don’t seem to have a problem understanding and loving God’s word.

There are thousands of believers in the Phillipines, where English is a second language, and they will not give up their King James Bibles. The same is true in many African countries and in Singapore.

A Christian lady told me about a home for retarded children here in the U.S. They tried using one of the modern bible versions for their school plays about the birth of the Saviour and His resurrection, but the kids could not remember their lines. Then they went back to the King James Bible and the kids recited their lines much more easily. The King James Bible is much easier to memorize and its words stick in the mind precisely because of the way it is written.

I will only briefly mention the textual issue in this article; there are many places to find out more about that. All Bibles are not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. The NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NASB use a different Greek text than the KJB; they don’t always agree with each other; and their Greek text differs from the KJB text by about 5000 words. There are 17 entire verses missing in the NIV new testament, and even more in the RSV and ESV.

Scores of times the NIV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB do not follow the Hebrew text, but use the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, or some other source. I have found at least 40 examples where the NKJV does not follow the same Greek text as the KJB, and is different still from the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB. None of these translations have the same meaning as the others in hundreds of verses. Which one then is God’s infallible word? I’m convinced it is the King James Bible.

There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

He also shows many examples of words in the modern versions which most people would have to look up in a dictionary. Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

Well, how about the New KJV? Can you pass this vocabulary test even with a few of my "helpful hints"? Let's see.


The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

So you see, besides the very serious textual matter, the modern versions also have words hard to be understood. Try giving this list of words as a vocabulary test and see if your son or daughter, or even yourself gets a passing score.

There is a huge battle going on today about the Bible. We are headed for the falling away, the apostasy, which will occur before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgment. This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.

The explosion of multiple-choice, conflicting modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

I believe the KJB to be God’s preserved, complete, pure, and inspired words. If I have to choose between a modern, up-to-date language Bible version that omits thousands of God inspired words from the New Testament (as do the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman), that rejects the Hebrew readings in numerous places, and that teaches false doctrine in several verses, or choose the old King James Bible that has a few "archaic words" but teaches the whole truth of God in purity of doctrine, it is a no-brainer. I will gladly and thankfully take the Holy Bible that God has set His mark of approval on like no other - the King James Bible. If you don’t have one, get it, read it, believe it, memorize it and hid its words in your heart.

The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

The Bible itself is not meant to be a book which can be easily understood. Who can read through the minor prophets and not ask himself: "What is he talking about? What does this mean?" Yet there are many parts of the Bible that even a child can comprehend.

I do not believe the Bible is supposed to be translated into contemporary street language. The English of the KJB 1611 was not written in "street language" even at that time.

Let's check with Oxford University for some stats:

William Shakespear used a total vocabulary of just over 24,000 words. In 2003 16,000 of those words are "obsolete".

Edgar Allen Poe used a total vocabulary of under 18,000 words. In 2003 9,550 of those words are "obsolete".

The King James Bible contains a total vocabulary of just over 6,000 words. In 2003 approximately 8 of those words are "obsolete".

Look at the divine pattern through history. We believe the Hebrew Old Testament was inspired by God. Yet the Jewish people in Israel today do not speak in the same Hebrew as is found in their scriptures, but they understand it. Not one of them would even consider "updating" the Hebrew text.

Most Bible critics I meet tell us we need to "go to the Hebrew and the Greek" to find out what God really said. This is so ironic. If we find a few old "archaic words" in the King James Bible that are hard to understand, they recommend instead that we learn Hebrew and Greek! Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides this, all of the translators behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places, so they reject these readings. Yet, even if we followed the Hebrew and Greek texts, we would then be learning hundreds and hundreds of "archaic words", because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not read as do modern Greek and Hebrew!

The same is true of the Greek Orthodox church. The Greek New Testament is not written in the same Greek that is spoken today in Greece, yet they understand it. None of those who believe it to be God's words are clamoring for a modern, up to date, "comic book" version.

God knew beforehand that languages would change and I believe He intended that His word would be placed in a form of language that would be different from that spoken on the street. God's Book is not supposed to read like people on the street talk. It never did.

The King James Bible reads differently from any other book. It is not like a newspaper, nor is it meant to sound like one. The Bible is an ancient book filled with timeless wisdom. I am impressed by the fact that this King James Bible has been around for a long time; it reads differently than any other book; it speaks like no man does in the pulpit, on radio or television, and I have to think about what it is saying. I don't just breeze through it like a tabloid magazine. When I slow down to think about what it says, I find that God speaks to me.

There seem to be two attitudes towards the KJB - those who want to understand it and defend it, and those who want to criticize and attack it.

To illustrate some of the confusion being wrought today by the conflicting "bibles" let me give you a few examples from the modern versions. In Job 42:6 the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV says: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes”. The NASB says, “Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes.” The Holman CSB says: "Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS, and repent..." There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".

In Exodus 26:14, “Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has "PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS". The Holman says: "MANATEE SKINS". In the wilderness, badger's skins would be a difficult to come by, but how many porpoises (NASB) or sea cows (NIV) , or manatees (Holman) do you think they could have scrounged up?

In Exodus 14:25, The LORD troubled the host of the pursuing Egyptians and "TOOK OFF" their chariot wheels. The RV, ASV, NIV, NKJV all equal the KJB, but the NASB and Holman tells us, "He caused the chariot wheels TO SWERVE". My car wheels have at times swerved but they didn't come off. Not quite the same meaning, is it? The RSV and ESV say: "CLOGGING their chariot wheels" with a footnote that tells us "clogging" comes from the LXX and the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "removing", like the KJB has.

In Deut. 33:25, "As thy days, so shall thy STRENGTH be." No matter what difficulties I may encounter, God will give me the strength to bear them and to go on. The NIV, NKJV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Holman, and Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has: "And according to your days, so shall YOUR LEISURELY WALK be." Did God ever promise us a leisurely walk? Not if I read the rest of the Bible, He didn't.

Is there a difference between an eagle and a vulture? In Matt. 24:28, "For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the EAGLES be gathered together." The RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young, RSV, and Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB have "vultures", yet it is a quote from Job 39:27-30 where it refers to eagles, even in the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB! The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB translate this same word as eagles in Rev. 4:7 and 12:14.

If someone said our national bird were the vulture, I think Americans would be a little upset; yet the NIV, Holman, ESV, and NASB think nothing of changing the eternal word of God, and few Christians seem to mind at all.

In Psalm 63:10 it says, "They shall be a portion for FOXES". This is the reading in the RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, Douay, and the NASB However the NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "jackals". This word is found 7 times in Hebrew and always translated as foxes by the KJB and NASB, yet the NKJV has foxes (as in Samson catching 300 of them) 6 times, but only here changed it to jackals. The NIV has foxes 4 times and jackals 3 times.

In 1 Kings 12:11 it says, "I will chastise you with SCORPIONS." The NASB, ESV and NIV agree with the KJB, but only the NKJV has "SCOURGES" here and even a footnote telling us it is literally "scorpions", while correctly translating it as scorpions in other passages. The Holman says: "I will discipline you with BARBED WHIPS" - Then it footnotes: Literally - scorpions.

Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible; it is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.

In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish" which is ixthus.

Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined loosely as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a whale, think Wow is that a big fish! Until some pedantic type says No, that's a mammal.

God Himself has His own "scientific classifications" as listed in 1 Corinthians 15:39. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the word really means, the NKJV and Holman have "the great fish", the NIV has "the huge fish" while the NASB has "the sea monster"!

Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati, the St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, and the RSV of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER? Again, the KJB is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NIV and NASB are not.

Those who don't believe any Bible, and more particularly the KJB, is the inspired word of God, frequently criticize the KJB for using words like "to let, prevent, suffer, and conversation". This is a bait and switch tactic, a smokescreen, and a poor excuse to get us to switch to a modern bible version which differs from the KJB both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses.

The verb "to let" is used in three ways in the KJB. "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind." "planted a vineyard. . .and let it out to husbandmen." The third example is the archaic use of to let meaning to withhold or to hinder.

There are still traces of this meaning today. Webster’s defines the noun "a let" as an obstacle, a hindrance, or a delay. In tennis if a ball hits the net, it is called a let ball. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Not only does the KJB use the word "let" in the sense of to hinder or withhold, but so also do Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 has "will let" in the second part of the verse. Even the Revised Version uses "to let" in this sense in Isaiah 43:13.

What I mean by bait and switch is the new versions say in effect "Let us clear up the confusion of the KJB and give you a modern rendering." But look at the NKJV, NIV, and NAS. They have updated the word "let" but all three have introduced a private interpretation into the passage by capitalizing certain words and not others (NKJV and NAS), or by adding words not found in any text (NIV).

The NKJV says, "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." Do you see how they have capitalized some of the "He"s and not others? They are forcing you to look at the passage in a certain way to understand its meaning. Yet there is a totally different way of looking at the passage, which is obscured by the new versions.

The NKJV also has changed the meaning of certain phrases in this chapter. Instead of "the day of Christ IS AT HAND" (v. 2) it says: "the day of Christ HAD COME". The NASB, ESV, NIV are worse with "the day of THE LORD has ALREADY COME". This changes the meaning of the passage.

Likewise the NKJV unites with the NASB, NIV, ESV in 2 Thessalonians 3:5 in changing "the Lord direct your hearts...into the patient waiting for Christ." So read the Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Webster, TMB, Bible in Basic English, and even the Living Bible. But the NKJV says: "direct your hearts into the patience of Christ", while the others make this the "steadfastness" or the "perseverance of Christ" or "Christ's endurance" (Holman), rather than the "patient waiting FOR Christ."

The word "to prevent" can have the meaning of to come before, to precede. The Oxford dictionary does not list this meaning as archaic. It is found in the 1936 Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company, the 1950 Douay Version, and in the Revised Version.

In Amos 9:10 it says, "the evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." The 1950 Douay reads like the KJB in Psalm 119:147-148, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried; I hoped in thy word, Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word."

The word can mean a "pre-event", something that happens before something else, and it is used in this way in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede, come before, a pre-event) them which are asleep."

Even when others criticize this word, they know what it means. It is easy to just explain the meaning of the word in this context, then you understand it, and let it stand as is in the KJB.

The word "suffer" is criticized as being archaic in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

If you look at a dictionary, the word "suffer", meaning to allow or permit, is not archaic at all. Have we been so dumbed down that we think a word can have only one narrow meaning? The Revised Version, the ASV, Darby, Young’s, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third millenium Bible, and the KJV 21st Century versions, all render this word as "suffer to come unto me."

April 2, 2003, a commentator on Fox News, in opposition to the war, stated that, "...it may be incumbent upon us to possibly SUFFER the presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq in order to maintain a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites."

The Rocky Mountain News in 2003 said of a politician: "He does not suffer fools gladly, and Washington is full of fools."

Feb. 1989 editorial in the Dayton Daily News, Dayton Ohio, stated that the "...Soviets ESCHEW any and all international presence in ending the Afghan War...". Likewise in 2003 the Rocky Mountain News spoke of a baseball team member who ESCHEWED taking a lower salary", and that was in the Sports section!

Another example of "bait and switch" is the word “conversation”. This word used to mean the manner in which one deals with others in social intercourse and exchange. It is very close to the Greek word used, anastrefo, which means to turn back and forth with others; con-versation is literally to turn back and forth with others. It is now limited only to our speech, but our speech is also a great part of how we conduct ourselves with others. Simply explain the word in its context, and leave it at that.

The bait and switch comes in 2 Cor. 1:12-14, "For our REJOICING is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our CONVERSATION in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward . . . we are your REJOICING even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus."

But look what the NIV, NKJV, and NAS have done in this section. The NASB says: "For our PROUD CONFIDENCE is this. . .we have conducted ourselves in the world. . .we are your REASON TO BE PROUD as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus." The NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "boast" instead of "rejoicing"- there is a big difference.

Philippians 2:16 KJB "that I may REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."

NASB: "in the day of Christ I may have REASON TO GLORY because I did not run in vain"

NIV, Holman CSB : "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."

No one will have a reason to be proud or boasting in the day of the Lord Jesus; we will all be flat on our faces! Which is worse, using an old word like conversation and explaining its meaning, or introducing pride as a Christian virtue in the new versions?

If the Bible is our rule and standard for both faith and practice, let's follow its own example for dealing with "archaic " words. In 1 Samuel 9:9, we are told, "(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer)"

You see, God explained the meaning of a word, and then He continues to use the word again and again, once He has explained its meaning. See the verses that follow in 1 Samuel 9:11, and 19.

These are just a few of the many examples I could give, but they will perhaps give you something to think about. All bibles are not the same and God is not the author of confusion. God's message is complete and not contradictory. If I get conflicting messages from the different versions, they can't all be from God. Satan and man are the ones who pervert the Scriptures.

As we get nearer the end, when many shall depart from the faith, the falling away will occur, and men will give heed to doctrines of devils, do you suppose that is the time when the best bibles will be popularly read? When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8 *

If you want to find rest for your soul, peace of mind and confident faith in the words of the living God, read and believe the Holy Bible God has clearly put His mark on as being His infallible words - the King James Bible.

Will Kinney
 

brandplucked

New member
Another Bible critic bites the dust - "by and by"

Another Bible critic bites the dust - "by and by"

"By and By" versus "the by-and-by"

"Great men are not always wise" Job 32:9

There is a site titled Defects in the King James Version http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html

This noted scholar, Professor Isaac H. Hall Ph.D. lists a bunch of bogus "errors" according to his lofty opinion, and among them lists the usage of the expression "by and by". The example he gives is found in Mark 6:25 and he writes:

'Ask what thou wilt and I will give it thee, even to the half of my kingdom.' (St. Mark vi., 22.) The damsel, after consulting with her mother, returns to the banqueting room, points, no doubt, to the dishes on the banqueting table, and says, 'Give me forthwith, on a dish, the head of John the Baptist.' In the English Bible the speech runs, 'Give me by and by, in a charger.' 'By and by' means, in our century, a time somewhat distant from the present; the phrase has ceased to mean 'forthwith.' ' A charger, in modern English, signifies a war horse; the word has ceased to signify a dish or platter from which plates are charged or supplied."

The Scriptures at issue are:

Luke 21:9 "But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by."

(Paralell passages Matthew 24:6 and Mark 13:7 have "not yet" and "not be yet" with a different Greek adverb "oupo")

Matthew 13:21 "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended."

Mark 6:25 "And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist."

Luke 17:7 "But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

At one of the Bible clubs, another KJB critic posted this accusation. Please note all the mockery and scoffing.

"KJB IDIOTIC ERROR, I guess it's time to demonstrate how idiotic the KJV inerrancy idea is. Not much can be worse than reporting the OPPOSITE of what the text says, but in Matt 13:21 and Luke 21:9, the TR reads "immediately" and the KJV says "by and by". http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=byandby defines "by-and-by" as "an indefinite time in the future", which is certainly not "immediately". There's just no way to label this as anything but an error. But don't expect too many KJV-Only folks to admit that there's an error in the KJV just because...the plain black and white of the text makes it undeniable. No...if their ideas where based on reality, they wouldn't believe the KJV is error free. You have to throw facts, logic and reason out the window to buy into the KJV Only philosophy and accept as a principle of faith, that no matter how much someone shows you an error, you still must look at it and claim it's not an error for no reason other than the fact that the King James cannot be wrong. KJV Onlyism isn't an act of faith, but an act of ridiculousness. No one can be taken seriously as a scholar who believes such an easy to disprove idea. After all the evidence we've presented, can't you just simply admit that there are errors in the KJV? It's so obvious to everyone else on this forum. No thinking person could read all the stuff I've posted and still conclude that it's impossible to come up with a better translation of the scriptures than the KJV."

Why do this KJB critic and the good professor Hall Ph. D. allege the use of "by and by" as an error and a defect in the King James Bible? Simply because they never properly checked the ENGLISH !

The Greek is fine, the King James Bible is fine, the English is fine, the dictionaries are fine, the commentaries are fine, the only error is found in these Bible critics' lack of understanding of the English language and their rush to falsely accuse the KJB of error.

These poor guys haven't done their homework at all. First notice the difference between "by and by", which according to Webster's 1967 Collegiate Dictionary 7th edition, and the Random House Webster Dictionary 1999 (not too outdated I hope) is an ADVERB and is not even listed as "archaic", the meaning of which is "before long, soon, presently".

In distinction to this is "by-and-by" (please notice the hyphens) is a noun, not an adverb, and means " in the future".

www.dictionary.com American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition by and by adv. After a while; soon. by-and-by (bn-b) n. Some future time or occasion.

Miriam-Webster - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary by and by adverb : before long : Soon by-and-by noun : a future time or occasion

So, there is a difference between the adverb "by and by" (soon, presently) and " the by-and-by" the noun (the future), as in "we shall meet in THE by-and-by", which is used with a definite article showing it to be a noun. Thus two distinguishing features are employed to show that one is a noun: a. the hyphens, and b. the definite article "the". In contrast, the adverb is used without the definite article "the" and has no hyphens.

In the King James Version, the expression "by and by" is found only four times - Matthew 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7, and Luke 21:9, and in every case it means immediately, soon, or shortly. Not only does the King James Bible use this expression "by and by" but so also do Tyndale's New Testament in Matthew 13:21, Mark 6:25, and Luke 21:9; the Geneva Bible in Matthew 13:21, Luke 17:7, and even the very modern versions of the King James Version 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible in Matthew 13:21, and Luke 17:7!!!

Now a few words about the seminary professor's comments about the word "charger". Remember he said: "' A charger, in modern English, signifies a war horse; the word has ceased to signify a dish or platter from which plates are charged or supplied."

Again, Professor Hall really should get himself a good dictionary of the English language. The Random House Webster's Dictionary 1999 edition I have right here on my desk does not even list this word as being "archaic", but defines it as: "noun. a large, flat dish or platter."

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.**2000. SYLLABICATION: charg·er PRONUNCIATION: **chärjr NOUN: A large shallow dish; a platter.

Not only does the King James Bible use the word "charger" here but so also do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the 21st Century King James Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. In fact, the word "charger" meaning a platter, is found a total of 19 times in the 21st Century KJV and the Third Millenium Bible. The Revised Version, Webster's translation, and Darby also use this word in Ezra 1:9 "a thousand chargers of silver", and it is frequently found in Numbers 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37 "his offering was one silver charger" etc.

These Bible critics need to learn a little more about the English language before they take their next jab at the King James Bible.

Will Kinney
 

logos_x

New member
Johnthebaptist and brandplucked,

You guys are funny.
And I mean that with all disinclination and superbity.
 

robycop3

Member
42ndgen said:
Hi robycop3:

You have stated this in response to my post:



Did I say that they are not saved?
No sir I did not they obviously are those that consider themselves saved. I agree there are many men that are saved who believe this. But they are refusing to come into a deeper relationship with the Lord in this area when they insist that the KJV is the only inerrent bible in existance. They like the Israelites have decided to camp around a truth and have decided to stay there, but the trumpet has sounded the Glory has departed and they are still in the wilderness camped around a truth they consider sacred, but now without the Lord's glory or protection. Just like the Israelites who refused to move with the Glory did, were without the glory of the Lord and without protection in the wilderness. All they need to do is pack up there tents and seek the Lord.

Grace and Peace Patrick


Thank you for clarifying your view, and my apology for misunderstanding it.

I agree 100% that being KJVO for any reason but personal preference stunts one's spiritual growth and limits that person's ability to perform God's work.
 

42ndgen

New member
Dear brandplucked:

You have stated:
There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

Are you serious? Is that just 200 instances total or 200 different words? If it is 200 different words than You are being very deceptive with that quote. Of the 200 words that are used what words are translated as those 200 words? and have you found every instance of the usage of those words? The comparison is not with the total of the words used but is to be compared to what words are translated, and if you want to compare the total 800,000 than you better add every instance of the word as it is translated in the Greek or Hebrew, or your comparison is way off in percentile.

8674 Hebrew words, and 5624 words used in the Greek. So the total is 14298 words used in the bible. So in actuality those 200 words are almost 1.5% of the different biblical words used in scripture. A big difference from .004%

Grace and Peace Patrick
 

Johnthebaptist

New member
Logos

Well, if I am funny for believing the Word of God, thats okay. By the way I did not just jump off the turnip truck and I have three degrees. I will pray that God will open your eyes to the truth of His Word. I also am not KJV Only. But I have nothing against the KJV.

God Bless
John
 

logos_x

New member
Johnthebaptist said:
Logos

Well, if I am funny for believing the Word of God, thats okay.

You aren't funny for believing the Word of God.
You are funny because of what you've said.

By the way I did not just jump off the turnip truck and I have three degrees.

Congratulations

I will pray that God will open your eyes to the truth of His Word.

And I will pray the same for you.

I also am not KJV Only.

That is wise.

But I have nothing against the KJV.

God Bless
John

Give it time. Once you learn how flawed the translation really is...you'll get angry about it, too.
 

robycop3

Member
42ndgen said:
Hi robycop3:

I am glad that we have cleared that up :BRAVO:

God bless

Grace and Peace Patrick


You're welcome, Sir.

And Dr. Vance is a "party-line" KJVO author, adhering to the false doctrine set forth by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller. it juse doesn't sink in with some people that all that KJVO jazz is part of a FALSE DOCTRINE.
 

Huldrych

New member
robycop3 said:
Without singling out Peter AV or AV Bunyan, I have noticed on many boards many people who have "AV" or "1611" in their screen names, but yet, when quoting Scripture, they quote from later editions of the KJV rather from the AV 1611. The KJVOs claim they're one and the same, but a simple reading of the first 5 verses of Genesis 1 from the AV and a current KJV edition proves that assertion WRONG.

I've got a copy of the 1611 here on my computer. Let's check it out:

1611: In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

1769: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1611: And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

1769: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1611: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1769: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1611: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

1769: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1611: And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

1769: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Spelling is different, that's for sure. The content, however, among these five verses is largely the same. Still, I think you've got a list somewhere of some pretty significant deviations from the 1611 in the 1769. I'll dig up a few:

Mt. 12:23
1611: And all the people were amazed, and said, Is this the sonne of Dauid?
1769: And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

1. Co. 4:9
1611: For I thinke that God hath set forth vs the Apostles last, as it were approued to death. For wee are made a spectacle vnto the world, and to Angels, and to men.
1769: For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

1. Cor 12:28
1611: And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.
1769: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1. Tim 1:4
1611: Neither giue heed to fables, and endlesse genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying which is in faith: so doe.
1769: 4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1. John 5:12
1611: Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.
1769: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

jth
 

robycop3

Member
KJV different editions

KJV different editions

Thanx, JTH!

The point I was making is that the various KJV editions ARE different. I believe Rick Norris is working on an exhaustive comparison right now between the AV 1611 & the 1769 Blayney's Edition. So far, his SHORT LIST dwarfs Dr. Waite's "complete" list.

The KJVOs claim perfection for the KJV. However, they won't specify WHICH EDITION they believe perfect. If any edition has so much as one punctuation mark different from that "perfect" one, then it's not perfect, is it?

How come so many KJVOs who post on these boards with "Av 1611" somewhere in their screen names quote Scriptures from LATER EDITIONS of the KJV?
 

brandplucked

New member
Printing errors and alleged revisions of the KJB

Printing errors and alleged revisions of the KJB

Huldrych said:
1. Cor 12:28
1611: And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.
1769: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


jth



Hi Jt, as you well know, these are nothing more than printing errors and changes in spelling. The underlying text of the King James Bible has always been the same. This cannot be said of versions like the NKJV, NASB, and NIV. These versions all continue to change their texts and even the underlying Greek and Hebrew from one edition to another, and this is done by these three modern versions deliberately. None of these people have a settled text and their "science" of textual criticism keeps on changing the Greek readings every few years and the newer versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman continue to reject more and more of the Hebrew readings.


Again, here is my article about those "printing errors", and how this is really a non-issue.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html


In and by His sovereign grace alone,

Will Kinney
 

brandplucked

New member
"archaic words"

"archaic words"

42ndgen said:
Dear brandplucked:
Are you serious? Is that just 200 instances total or 200 different words? If it is 200 different words than You are being very deceptive with that quote. Of the 200 words that are used what words are translated as those 200 words? and have you found every instance of the usage of those words? The comparison is not with the total of the words used but is to be compared to what words are translated, and if you want to compare the total 800,000 than you better add every instance of the word as it is translated in the Greek or Hebrew, or your comparison is way off in percentile.

8674 Hebrew words, and 5624 words used in the Greek. So the total is 14298 words used in the bible. So in actuality those 200 words are almost 1.5% of the different biblical words used in scripture. A big difference from .004%

Grace and Peace Patrick

Hi Patrick, you have a valid point. It depends on how one counts the words. Mr. Vance is being very liberal with his count of 200 words. In fact, most of these 200 different words are not archaic at all, but he includes them anyway. By his comparing these 200 different words with the total of 800,000 words, his chart is not fairly accurate. However, even if we take your 1.5% as being correct, so what?

Most of these words are easily recognizable and even found in the modern versions. There are really only about 10 words that come up with any regularity that most people would have to learn what they mean in the contexts.

When people tell us that no translation is perfect, they then tell us we need to go to the Hebrew and the Greek, both of which are far more difficult and archaic than anything found in the King James Bible.

The simple fact of the matter is that most Christians today do not believe ANY Bible or any text in any language IS NOW the inerrant, preserved, inspired and complete word of God.


After all that I said in the article about the changes in texts and meanings found in the modern versions, it is of interest that you would chose to pick up on the minor issue of 200 to 800,000 word comparison to make your case.

Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.

Do you have an inerrant, inspired and complete Bible? NO. That is your problem; not just a few "archaic" words.


Will K
 

Huldrych

New member
Print errors, or revisions?

Print errors, or revisions?

brandplucked said:
Hi Jt, as you well know, these are nothing more than printing errors and changes in spelling.

Methinks you have not looked at the list I gave closely enough. Those verses were more than simply misspellings or print errors.

Mt. 12:23
1611: And all the people were amazed, and said, Is this the sonne of Dauid?
1769: And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Call it what you want, but the insertion/omission of "not" is certainly not a mere spelling change.

1. Co. 4:9
1611: For I thinke that God hath set forth vs the Apostles last, as it were approued to death. For wee are made a spectacle vnto the world, and to Angels, and to men.
1769: For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
"Approved" or "appointed?" Which is the preserved word?

1. Cor 12:28
1611: And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.
1769: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
This one has some serious ramifications regarding what God has set up in the churches. Is it one gift, or two? Which Authorized Version should we turn to here? If the 1611, why wasn't it "preserved" in the 1769? If the 1769, what gave Blayney the right to overrule the "preserved words" from 1611?

1. Tim 1:4
1611: Neither giue heed to fables, and endlesse genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying which is in faith: so doe.
1769: 4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1. John 5:12
1611: Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.
1769: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Same questions here. Is "godly" and "of God" the preserved words or not?

The underlying text of the King James Bible has always been the same.

That quote brings up an interesting point: When the text of the King James is in doubt (seeing that the 1611 and the 1769 do not perfectly agree, spelling conventions aside), something else must be appealed to. And that is where having a copy of God's perfectly preserved words from elsewhere would come in handy. The Textus Receptus (er, which one--Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Scrivener 1894?)? Bibles from the Reformation (no proto-KJV there)? Waldensian Bibles (even though one of them obviously does not conform to the KJV)? Old Latin (lost cause there)?

jth
 

Huldrych

New member
One Greek text or several?

One Greek text or several?

brandplucked said:
The underlying text of the King James Bible has always been the same.

You mean "texts." Found this over at kjvonly.org:

“Stephanus’ third edition [1550] became for many persons, especially in England, the received or standard text of the Greek New Testament.” This was the “standard” text used by the translators of the Authorized Version. In addition, the translators had at their disposal the editions of Erasmus (1516, 1519, etc.), Beza (1589), and the Complutensian Polyglott (1514-1522). The translators did not always follow the standard text of Stephanus (Stephens), but sometimes followed readings found in the other available texts.

http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_greek_text.htm

He goes on to show where the AV departs from Stephanus, and where it agrees with other texts (Complutensian Polyglot, Vulgate, etc.)

But here's another interesting quote from that article:

There have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators.

Very interesting.

jth
 

brandplucked

New member
Hypocricy of those who do not believe any Bible

Hypocricy of those who do not believe any Bible

Huldrych said:
You mean "texts." Found this over at kjvonly.org:



http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_greek_text.htm

He goes on to show where the AV departs from Stephanus, and where it agrees with other texts (Complutensian Polyglot, Vulgate, etc.)

But here's another interesting quote from that article:



Very interesting.

jth

Hi Jt, what is VERY interesting is this silly article put up by Mr. Price. Mr. Price is another guy who does not believe any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God. What is so hypocritical is that Price is one of the NKJV editors and translators, and yet he criticizes out of complete ignorance things that are found in both the KJB AND the NKJV.

His article said this: "Textual Changes Since 1611
*Scrivener produced the Greek text that underlies the English of the 1611 edition of the AV. There have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators. The following are places where the AV has words not in italics that are not in Scrivener’s TR:"


First of all, Scrivener made mistakes in his Greek text, and these are some of them. What Scrivener did was to take the already completed KJB and backtranslate it into Greek, but he messed up a few times. Let's look at his examples.

2 Tim. 1:18 added* “unto me” after “ministered” following the Vulg.

This is false. It is not a case of the words "unto me" being taken from the Vulgate, but rather supplied by the context. Literally speaking the words are not in the text, but ALL bible translations frequently add words in English to supply the sense of different passages. Since Dr. Price worked on the NKJV, it is totally hypocritical for him to criticize the words "unto me" since they are also found in the NKJV as well!!! They are also in Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and the NIV.


Eph. 6:24 added “amen” at the end.


Again, a false statement. The word "Amen" IS in the Textus Receptus and the Majority of all Greek texts. It is the nasb, niv, based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit this word. The word Amen is found in the Modern Greek TR text as well as Stephanus and the NKJV. SCRIVENER is the guy who made the mistake in his backtranslated Greek text, and Price is lying, and even his own nkjv has the word Amen in the text. These clowns with no inerrant Bible will even destroy their own preferred versions if they think they can make something stick to the KJB.


1 Cor. 14:10 added “of them” after “none.” The 1611 edition had the words in italics,*
but the 1769 edition erroneously replaced the italics with regular*
typeface indicating that the words are in the Greek text.


Again, Dr. Price is lying. The words "of them" (autwn) is found in the Modern Greek TR, Stephanus, the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, the NKJV and the NIV. The nasb omits them because not in the critical text. Again, it was Scrivenir who made the mistake and missed it.
*
Then Dr. Price continues with these examples:


The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR:

2 Peter 2:18 The word “through” was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text; and the word “much” was added.

The original 1611 printing had "through much" wantoness, and later it was changed to italics as it stands today. There is nothing wrong with either. The words are implied in the Greek text because the noun is in the dative case, which means "through" or "by means of".

The NKJV also has "through" in their text, even though strickly speaking, there is no such word in the Greek. Other translations say "by", even though not literally in any text. Dr. Price does not know what he is talking about and he condemns his own NKJV by criticizing the KJB.

The following are places where the AV does not follow the Scrivener’s text:

Acts 19:20 Scrivener’s TR reads tou/ Kuri,ou (of the Lord) but the KJV reads “of God.”

This again is a matter of translation, not of following a different text. The word kurios can legitimately be translated as God. The LXX version does this thousands of times.
Not only does the KJB read "God" here, but so do Tyndale, Geneva, Matthew's Bible, Wesley's translation, Bishops' Bible, Wycliffe, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

By the way, check out the nasb in Acts 12:24.


Heb. 10:23 Scrivener’s TR reads th/j evlpi,doj (of the hope) but the KJV reads “of our faith.”

This again is a translational issue and not a textual issue. I have already addressed this alleged "error" in a previous post.


Here is the article again for those who are interested

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/profaHeb10.html


Dr. Price's whole silly article showing how the KJB translators did not always follow Stephanus, or Beza or Erasmus is totally without merit of any kind. ALL Bible versions do this type of thing, and his own NKJV has done the very thing he criticizes the KJB for doing.

What a hypocrite this Dr. Price is!! I know his position is that of "originals only", and he has no Bible or text in any language he believes to be the infallible words of God. So, what do these buffoons do? They attack the true Holy Bible and set up their own darkened and puffed up minds as the final authority.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

Will Kinney
 

Huldrych

New member
Thank you, Will

Thank you, Will

brandplucked said:
Dr. Price's whole silly article showing how the KJB translators did not always follow Stephanus, or Beza or Erasmus is totally without merit of any kind. ALL Bible versions do this type of thing, and his own NKJV has done the very thing he criticizes the KJB for doing.

That is profound, Will. You mean to say that the KJV was not the result of just the TR, but a composite of texts?

That was, after all, the main thrust of my last post.

Kind of complicates your ideas of preservation, no?

Speaking of which:

Acts 19:20 Scrivener’s TR reads tou/ Kuri,ou (of the Lord) but the KJV reads “of God.”

This again is a matter of translation, not of following a different text. The word kurios can legitimately be translated as God. The LXX version does this thousands of times.

How does the Greek LXX translate "kurios," a Greek word, as "God"? Whenever I see "kurios" in Greek, I don't all of the sudden see "theos."

Maybe you can excuse translating it as "God" (and I know you will excuse the KJV from just about anything), but most of the Bibles I read keep it as "Lord."

Not only does the KJB read "God" here, but so do Tyndale, Geneva, Matthew's Bible, Wesley's translation, Bishops' Bible, Wycliffe, Lamsa's translation of the Pe7shitta, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

But not the EMTV, Luther, Elberfelder, Schlachter, Statenvertaling, de Reina, Afrikaans, Danish, Louis Segond, Green's Literal Translation, Norwegian, de Almeida, nor Swedish Bibles.

Heb. 10:23 Scrivener’s TR reads th/j evlpi,doj (of the hope) but the KJV reads “of our faith.”

This again is a translational issue and not a textual issue. I have already addressed this alleged "error" in a previous post.

More excuses. All the above, including the ALT, Diodati, Jubilee2000, Murdock's translation of the Peshitta, and Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's, Coverdale, and Wycliffe, use "hope."

jth
 
Last edited:

Johnthebaptist

New member
brandplucked

The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR:

2 Peter 2:18 The word “through” was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text; and the word “much” was added.

The original 1611 printing had "through much" wantoness, and later it was changed to italics as it stands today. There is nothing wrong with either. The words are implied in the Greek text because the noun is in the dative case, which means "through" or "by means of".

There is also nothing wrong with the ASV translation "by lasciviousness" sense (aselgeiais) is instrumental Dative.

The KJV was based mainly on Erasmus Greek New Testament. Erasmus only had abut 6 very late manuscripts to work with. There is absolutely no factual evideince he had excess to the vaticanus.
 

Huldrych

New member
Johnthebaptist said:
The KJV was based mainly on Erasmus Greek New Testament. Erasmus only had abut 6 very late manuscripts to work with. There is absolutely no factual evideince he had excess to the vaticanus.

According to what I read from James D. Price, the AV's NT was largely, but not exclusively, based on Stephanus 1550 (click on the link I gave from kjvonly.org a few posts back). It agrees mostly with Erasmus' texts, but not perfectly, as most TR-Onlyists tend to believe. The TR has never been a monolith.

As far as access to Vaticanus is concerned, I remember reading somewhere that Erasmus was offered Vaticanus to work from, but he refused it, for one reason or another.

Erasmus' texts may be late, but I understand there are a good many patristic quotes that tend to favor the traditional text, meaning those readings were around much earlier than the age of Erasmus' texts suggest.

jth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top