Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Truther]

Of course, why do you think school prohibits that?

So, the person that baptized you said "in the name of Jesus" as you were in the water to be immersed immediately thereafter?

 

[Truther]

Well, there's a revealing comment. I will say one thing about this off-topic claim. Trump is a proven liar!

If you compare yourself to Trump I have nothing but pity for you! Now, back to the subject of the thread...

You just revealed yourself and your CNN compadres.

 

[reformed1689]

So, the person that baptized you said "in the name of Jesus" as you were in the water to be immersed immediately thereafter?

I was baptized way before school so how is this even relevant? Oh wait, it's not.

 

[Jim B]

You just revealed yourself and your CNN compadres.

No wonder you call yourself "truther". It's absurd. BTW, I don't listen to CNN or no anyone who works there, so your assumption is, as usual, false.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course you don't expect me to see it. Matthew 15:14, "If someone who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” I worship God; you worship a book.

This is just a false accusation and I have heard this over the years. Most KJB Christians believe God is a spirit being and that He must be worshipped. The Bible is simply the written thoughts or the mind of God. It’s like a love letter a woman receives from her fiancé in another country. She may cherish the letter but it would be abnormal to talk to the letter as if it was her fiancé and to kiss it and take it out on dinner dates. I don’t know of many KJB only Christians as treating the KJB as if it was God in His entirety. But if you don’t have the perfect words of God then how do you know you have the correct doctrines and teachings about God to believe in Him correctly and to love Him and others properly?

Modern bibles teach false doctrines. This is why they are not my final word of authority even though I use them to update what the KJB is saying at times.

Anyways, peace and blessings be to you even if we disagree.

 

[reformed1689]

Modern bibles teach false doctrines

Ok, show me one place where a modern English translation CHANGES any doctrine found in the KJV. It does not exist.

 

[Davy]

The simple fact is, that there are older example of texts now, then there were available during the time that the KJV was translated.

Thing is, that is NOT a simple fact.

The claim that the Codex Vaticanus manuscript is older has NOT... been established. Even scholars on the committee with Wescott and Hort like Dean Burgon remarked about lack of historical proof and was suspicious about such a claim.

The Codex Vaticanus, the main... Greek manuscript which supposedly supports textual criticism, and one of the main manuscripts which Wescott and Hort's theory rested upon, was discovered in the Vatican in 1475, and no earlier history has ever proven how it got there nor its origins. It was presented to Erasmus by the Vatican's librarian in the 16th century, but Erasmus rejected it because he believed it had somehow been altered after the Council of Florence in 1435. It was put away for centuries until Napoleon discovered it and took it to Paris in 1809, in which it was returned to the Vatican in 1815. In Paris, the Roman Catholic scholar Johann Leonard Hug examined it and dated it to the 4th century (On the Antiquity of Codex Vaticanus, by J.L. Hug, 1810).

Oh, and the study of paleographical analysis (dating of ancient manuscripts) didn't begin until the Counter-Reformation, and was started by the Catholic Church!

 

[reformed1689]

Thing is, that is NOT a simple fact.

The claim that the Codex Vaticanus manuscript is older has NOT... been established. Even scholars on the committee with Wescott and Hort like Dean Burgon remarked about lack of historical proof and was suspicious about such a claim.

The Codex Vaticanus, the main... Greek manuscript which supposedly supports textual criticism, and one of the main manuscripts which Wescott and Hort's theory rested upon, was discovered in the Vatican in 1475, and no earlier history has ever proven how it got there nor its origins. It was presented to Erasmus by the Vatican's librarian in the 16th century, but Erasmus rejected it because he believed it had somehow been altered after the Council of Florence in 1435. It was put away for centuries until Napoleon discovered it and took it to Paris in 1809, in which it was returned to the Vatican in 1815. In Paris, the Roman Catholic scholar Johann Leonard Hug examined it and dated it to the 4th century (On the Antiquity of Codex Vaticanus, by J.L. Hug, 1810).

Oh, and the study of paleographical analysis (dating of ancient manuscripts) didn't begin until the Counter-Reformation, and was started by the Catholic Church!

It goes so much deeper than Vaticanus.

 

[Davy]

Not true. The words of Matthew 17:21 can be read at Mark 9:29.

You're being funny. Matthew and Mark are TWO SEPARATE BOOKS in The New Testament.

The NIV is MISSING that verse in the Book of Matthew, while it is in BOTH Matthew and Mark in the 1611 KJV Bible!

 

[Davy]

Why is it "lazy" to want to just read the Bible, without having a dictionary or lexicon in one's hand at the same time? When the KJV was first published, people didn't need a lexicon in order to understand it. Were they lazy?

Read and understand what God said to the rebellious leaders of Jerusalem in Isaiah 28, and maybe... you'll understand GOD's WAY He showed how to study His Word. Those leaders in Jerusalem mocked God's way...

Isa 28:13
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
KJV

The above is what Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15 is actually pointing to with the idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth." The Bible student can't study His Word like reading a novel. It must be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little".

 

[reformed1689]

Read and understand what God said to the rebellious leaders of Jerusalem in Isaiah 28, and maybe... you'll understand GOD's WAY He showed how to study His Word. Those leaders in Jerusalem mocked God's way...

Isa 28:13
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
KJV

The above is what Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15 is actually pointing to with the idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth." The Bible student can't study His Word like reading a novel. It must be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little".

You know when the Bible was written, which, this may be news to you, was way before 1611, it was written in the common language of that time. So why should we not translate it into the common language of our time, which, again, is not Elizabethan English?

 

[Jim B]

You're being funny. Matthew and Mark are TWO SEPARATE BOOKS in The New Testament.

The NIV is MISSING that verse in the Book of Matthew, while it is in BOTH Matthew and Mark in the 1611 KJV Bible!

NET translator's note on Matthew 17:21: "Many significant mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Γ Δ ƒ1, 13 565 579 700 1241 1424 M al lat sy(p),h, but is almost certainly not original. As Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations."

NET translator's note on Mark 9:29, "Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (P45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ ƒ1,13 33 M lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nēsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most significant witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading."

Trust scholars, not misguided, biased opinions.

 

[Davy]

Whatever has a door-to-door salesman got to do with my bible of choice. i bought my first one direct from the Bible Society. And I am very happy with it. You are doing what you just accused a door-to-door salesman of doing - pushing a certain version at me. Just think about it. Anf FYI a bible is not 'gadgetry'.

Wescott and Hort were 'door-to-door salesmen', and I mean that in a derogatory manner, like carpetbaggers and such that try to sell junk. Even they in their discovered letters to each other admitted if the world ever found out about their disbelief of many basic Biblical Christian doctrines, that their presenting of a new Greek text revision using the Vaticanus and Alexnadrinus manuscripts would immediately be rejected.


Hort had said in one of his letters:

"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit ..." "... nothing can be more unscriptural than the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to his death ..." "... but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (The Life & Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.1, p.430)


Hort favored the Catholic system, and when all the documentation put forth by that Bridge to Babylon documentary is weighed, it reveals a conspiracy against the Protestant Faith by the Roman Catholic Church, with Wescott and Hort being on the forefront of NEW AND IMPROVED BIBLE VERSIONS THAT USE THE VATICAN'S FAKE 1475 manuscript, the Codex Vaticanus, especially Codex B version of it.

 

[Jim B]

Read and understand what God said to the rebellious leaders of Jerusalem in Isaiah 28, and maybe... you'll understand GOD's WAY He showed how to study His Word. Those leaders in Jerusalem mocked God's way...

Isa 28:13
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
KJV

The above is what Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15 is actually pointing to with the idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth." The Bible student can't study His Word like reading a novel. It must be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little".

Of course the early "readers" were almost entirely illiterate. They heard the "Bible" read to them. They didn't study it and come to erroneous conclusions based on a translation in a language that they didn't use.

 

[Pearl]

Wescott and Hort were 'door-to-door salesmen', and I mean that in a derogatory manner, like carpetbaggers and such that try to sell junk. Even they in their discovered letters to each other admitted if the world ever found out about their disbelief of many basic Biblical Christian doctrines, that their presenting of a new Greek text revision using the Vaticanus and Alexnadrinus manuscripts would immediately be rejected.

I'm English so don't know those you call door to door salesmen. The only people I ever had calling door to door to sell was a lady from a company called Bettaware who sold kitchen items. Your references are rather obscure.

 

[Pearl]

Of course the early "readers" were almost entirely illiterate. They heard the "Bible" read to them. They didn't study it and come to erroneous conclusions based on an translation in a language that they didn't use.

Of course any language that the bible is translated into is not the KJV unless it is English so how about foreign language bibles? Have you ever read the introductions in the front of some of these modern translations that you so despise? If not you should educate yourself by spending some time finding our what they say about the work of the translators.

 

[Davy]

It goes so much deeper than Vaticanus.

Sure does. Same lack of proofs exist with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. Wescott and Hort claimed those manuscripts were shorter than the Majority texts BECAUSE of additions to the Majority texts, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NO HISTORICAL PROOF OF SUCH A CLAIM.

 

[Davy]

You know when the Bible was written, which, this may be news to you, was way before 1611, it was written in the common language of that time. So why should we not translate it into the common language of our time, which, again, is not Elizabethan English?

Today's 1611 KJV Bible is NO LONGER in OLD ENGLISH. It HAS been updated making it easier to read. Didn't you see my post #109? Thus your attempt... to use that old hat just doesn't get it, and simply exposes your agenda... against the Majority texts used for the 1611 KJV New Testament.

 

[reformed1689]

Sure does. Same lack of proofs exist with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. Wescott and Hort claimed those manuscripts were shorter than the Majority texts BECAUSE of additions to the Majority texts, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NO HISTORICAL PROOF OF SUCH A CLAIM.

Actually there is historical proof that the TR has passages taht are not original.

 

[reformed1689]

Today's 1611 KJV Bible is NO LONGER in OLD ENGLISH. It HAS been updated making it easier to read. Didn't you see my post #109? Thus your attempt... to use that old hat just doesn't get it, and simply exposes your agenda... against the Majority texts used for the 1611 KJV New Testament.

You don't use the 1611 so quit calling it that. You use an edited KJV.