New International PerVersion
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
I think Darby is his great grandfather figure. At 25 years old he is definitely lacking a few pieces of info.
Daniel1611
New member
You have yet to provide any actual evidence that the critical text is superior to the TR. Saying that "scholars" accept it isn't proof. Many scholars accept the TR. Many scholars don't believe in the Bible at all. You have offered 0 evidence.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Yet you are quite willing to play the 'scholar' card when it supports your contention that the TR is superior.
Daniel1611
New member
No. I stated that the people who translated it into English, the KJV, were brilliant scholars. This says nothing of the TR, only that the KJV is an accurate translation. I gave other reasons why I accept the TR.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The KJV is an ok translation. There are better.
Daniel1611
New member
Such as? Out of the gate, if its translated from the critical text as nearly all moder. Bible are, it is inferior.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
You claim 'all modern bibles are inferior'. Proof please. Your KJV only bias is showing.
As soon as you do, I will refute it with my own. Until then, you opinion is just that, and NOT a very well informed one.
Daniel1611
New member
Number one. Hundreds of copies of the TR exist and have been handed down over the millenia with only superficial differences among copies. Your move.
I didn't ask for more opining from you, I asked for facts. Your opinion means absolutely nothing here.
Daniel1611
New member
I don't hide my bias. I'm KJV only. Why would I want to use some garbage translation like the HIV or NLT when I have the KJV? The devil promotes false Bible version to cast doubt on God's word.
Daniel1611
New member
So its an opinion that there are hundreds of copies of the TR? I do t get it. You sound more like an unsaved troll than someone here for a discussion. I've had the KJV only discussion with members here that I respect like AngelForTruth. You just seem more interested in trolling.
Can a person be saved while reading the NIV?
Daniel1611
New member
Possibly. I'm sure people have. But with all the footnotes and contradictions in the NIV, it would be easy to conclude that you can't trust the Bible. But the KJV doesn't cast doubt. It has power because its God's word. If there were other versions that were faithful to the TR and were translated by Christians, they would be acceptable to me. I don't have a problem with the Bishops or Geneva.
Mocking You
New member
Yes, it's a fine translation if it were the 1600's. It's not. Therefore all the old archaic words and phrases could be stumbling blocks to reading the Bible, especially to new Christians.
Daniel1611
New member
A bible that's missing verses is more of a stumbling block. You can get a KJV that has aittle dictionary. The NIV just leaves out verses and changes others.
You're NOT discussing, you are making assertions WITHOUT proof or citation. I call them opinions to be kind, and I'm not talking to AFT am I?
Contribute something valid or stop responding to my posts.
Daniel1611
New member
Gladly. I have No need for unsaved heretics. Deuces.
Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:
KJV translates...
Textus Receptus actually says...
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
"Lucifer" Is 14:12
"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
"Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
"flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1
These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.