Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Grailhunter]

@Bible Highlighter said
“Westcott and Hort started the Modern Translation movement and they were Catholic and held to occult beliefs.
Then the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text came along (leaning heavily upon the Westcott and Hort text) and this text was under the supervision of the Vatican. All your Modern English bibles comes from this source.”

Everyone see this?

This is precisely why the King James Bible stands uniquely against all other modern versions!

None of this is based on facts. Protestants would not trust the Catholics for anything and the Catholic Church did not indorse the NIV or the NASB in anyway. The whole point of these translations was to look at the most accurate manuscript available.

A simple comparison between the KJV and the most accurate manuscripts will show hundreds of errors. I run into it all of the time! It is still a fact that the KJV is infamous for it errors. Compare the manuscripts. A lot of these errors are just people along the way that wanted their beliefs in the Bible, so they put them in the KJV. And some of the errors are just people inserting explanations in the KJV, thinking it would clarify something. The KJV has its own reverent following and people that do this place their faith in that translation, not in the actual scriptures or God.

 

[Jim B]

Why would Satan add scriptures that bring more honor and glory to Jesus and give more power to the saints?

However, the scriptures that are missing in the Alexandrian Text that modern Bibles are based on take away scriptures that exalt Jesus and fully equip the saints!

You would not make a good detective @Jim B

Apparently you forgot who brought up the subject Satan adding scriptures: you (by misinterpreting Genesis).

Claiming that the scriptures that are missing in the Alexandrian Text that modern Bibles are based on is nonsense. a) Modern Bibles are based on a large collection of sources and b) exalt Jesus and fully equip the saints.

Here is part of the introduction of the NET, my preferred translation...

"The New English Translation, like the New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not an update or revision of an older one (such as the New Revised Standard Version of 1989, which is a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1946/71, itself a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, all of which are from the Critical Text).

The translation and extensive notes were undertaken by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The NET Bible was initially conceived at an annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 1995 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide a digital version of a modern English translation over the Internet and on CD-ROM without cost for the user: “The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry.” Many of those involved in the project’s initial discussions eventually became part of the translation team. The translation itself claims to be non-sectarian, “inter-denominational” and evangelical.

The translation is most notable for an immense number of lengthy footnotes (which often explain its textual translation decision), its open translation process, its availability on the Internet (both during its beta process and in its final form), and its open copyright permitting free downloads."

Here is part of the introduction to the NIV, the best-selling Bible...

"The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has completed their work to update the New International Version of the Bible. The CBT was formed in 1965 to create a modern English Bible translation from the oldest and best-available biblical manuscripts. The NIV rapidly became the world’s most read modern English Bible with more than 400 million copies in print. Since the most recent NIV update in 1984, the CBT has continued to meet every year in accordance with the NIV charter, which demands constant monitoring of developments in Biblical scholarship and English usage and the reflection of these developments in periodic updates to the text. The committee represents the very best in evangelical biblical scholarship with its members drawn from various denominations and from some of the finest academic institutions in the world."

Why do you persist in lying?

 

[Jim B]

None of this is based on facts. Protestants would not trust the Catholics for anything and the Catholic Church did not indorse the NIV or the NASB in anyway. The whole point of these translations was to look at the most accurate manuscript available.

A simple comparison between the KJV and the most accurate manuscripts will show hundreds of errors. I run into it all of the time! It is still a fact that the KJV is infamous for it errors. Compare the manuscripts. A lot of these errors are just people along the way that wanted their beliefs in the Bible, so they put them in the KJV. And some of the errors are just people inserting explanations in the KJV, thinking it would clarify something. The KJV has its own reverent following and people that do this place their faith in that translation, not in the actual scriptures or God.

Great post! See my post immediately above for more evidence.

In my opinion, the closed, accusatory minds of KJVOs is really tragic. They have made a faulty, centuries-old translation, commissioned by a secular king to justify his personal version of Protestantism in order to give divine authority to him, into the purely translated Bible. There is a good reason that the Puritans and others fled his rule, carrying the Geneva Bibles (with footnotes) along with them.

The KJVOs are rigid and dogmatic, just like the Pharisees who, with their "pure knowledge" of God's written word, missed Christ.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

A simple comparison between the KJV and the most accurate manuscripts will show hundreds of errors.

Because the KJV is based largely on a text tradition (Received Text) that has not been altered by the corrupted source of the Alexandrian Text.

You assume the the Alexandrian Text is the correct text which is why the illusion of errors in the KJV manifests itself.

You judge the accuracy of the KJV on corrupted texts.

This simple fact eludes you or you ignore it based on the lies first propagated by Westcott and Hort.

“No Bible believer should be deceived by the parading of great names in the field of Biblical scholarship… when these very men are but the parrots of the rationalist of another century. The case they present is not their own, but a modern presentation of an ancient heresy.” (My Plea for the Old Sword, by Dr. Ian Paisley)

 

[Grailhunter]

Great post! See my post immediately above for more evidence.

In my opinion, the closed, accusatory minds of KJVOs is really tragic. They have made a faulty, centuries-old translation, commissioned by a secular king to justify his personal version of Protestantism in order to give divine authority to him, into the purely translated Bible. There is a good reason that the Puritans and others fled his rule, carrying the Geneva Bibles (with footnotes) along with them.

The KJVOs are rigid and dogmatic, just like the Pharisees who, with their "pure knowledge" of God's written word, missed Christ.

You are right...
And you can learn a lot by looking at the manuscripts.
Some people think that interpreting the manuscripts is something like rocket science. It is not. Most scriptures written in the manuscripts are straight forward. The Apostles were not trying to confuse people. A few require knowledge of the time period....a few....and some will leave ya scratching your head....still a few. So if there is any doubt, go to the source.

The Geneva Bible has been called the Breeches Bible.....because they were not comfortable with what the scriptures said about what Adam and Eve wore...this is how it all happens. You can look at these manuscripts and compare them to the older translations and you can see how the beliefs and attitudes of the time periods are part of the translational process for these older translations.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is another reason for the King James Bible:

The Command To Not Exercise Authority Like the Gentiles Do is Subtly Altered.

The Command: “It shall not be so among you.”

Matthew 20:25-27 says, “You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”

Matthew 20:27 correctly says in the King James “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” Modern Translations say, “and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,” Okay. There is a big difference between a ”servant” and a “slave.” One is obligated to do servitude and the other is a servant by choice. I can imagine how this verse could be misused by certain Christian cults, or really bad people, etc.; How is this possible? Because they would be using a Modern Translation as the basis for their authority and not the King James.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Claiming that the scriptures that are missing in the Alexandrian Text that modern Bibles are based on is nonsense.

Is it?

The received text (Textus Receptus) is the old Byzantine text with hundreds of copies in agreement. It was written in koine Greek of which hundreds of words cannot be translated into Classical Greek. The early Church used koine Greek manuscripts and rejected the Alexandrian versions which were based on corrupt version with Origen and other Gnostic revisions.

Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 16, 1936, p. 900-902

Why do you persist in lying?

Why do you persist on propagating lies?

 

[Grailhunter]

Because the KJV is based largely on a text tradition (Received Text) that has not been altered by the corrupted source of the Alexandrian Text.

You assume the the Alexandrian Text is the correct text which is why the illusion of errors in the KJV manifests itself.

You judge the accuracy of the KJV on corrupted texts.

This simple fact eludes you or you ignore it based on the lies first propagated by Westcott and Hort.

“No Bible believer should be deceived by the parading of great names in the field of Biblical scholarship… when these very men are but the parrots of the rationalist of another century. The case they present is not their own, but a modern presentation of an ancient heresy.” (My Plea for the Old Sword, by Dr. Ian Paisley)

No, you are wrong, I base my biblical beliefs on the manuscripts and the manuscripts alone. As far as the scriptures, the Apostles are the only "men" I trust. I could care less about what any other group of men thought. I compare the KJV to the manuscripts and there are a lot of errors....

 

[Michiah-Imla]

No, you are wrong, I base my biblical beliefs on the manuscripts and the manuscripts alone. As far as the scriptures, the Apostles are the only "men" I trust. I could care less about what any other group of men thought. I compare the KJV to the manuscripts and there are a lot of errors....

[walks away from the wall he was talking to…]

 

[Grailhunter]

The received text (Textus Receptus) is the old Byzantine text with hundreds of copies in agreement. It was written in koine Greek of which hundreds of words cannot be translated into Classical Greek. The early Church used koine Greek manuscripts and rejected the Alexandrian versions which were based on corrupt version with Origen and other Gnostic revisions.

The Textus Receptus has nothing to do with the early church. It is another product of man....It has been known for years that the Textus Receptus is not a reliable source.

Byzantine text! Byzantine! Textus Receptus circa 1516 AD--Erasmus. It was using corrupted Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate....A Catholic translation. All this talk about new translations having a Catholic influence or connection. The Vulgate was a Latin translation by St. Jerome....strictly Catholic. All of the older translations were using the Vulgate as a source. Newer translations do not have to do that because older more accurate manuscripts have been discovered.

 

[Jim B]

[walks away from the wall he was talking to…]

John 8:31-32, "Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, “If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

What do you have against the truth?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

What do you have against the truth?

Your modern Bibles are the ones deleting scriptures, not the King James Bible.

That’s a strange question coming from someone of your persuasion…

 

[Jim B]

Your modern Bibles are the ones deleting scriptures, not the King James Bible.

That’s a strange question coming from someone of your persuasion…

My persuasion? What exactly is that?

And what scriptures have been deleted (other than the ones added in the KJV)?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Here is a great article that might challenge some here:

Are you a Bible Agnostic? Most Christians today are. How about you?

I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational. I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics. They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word. In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199). This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic.

John MacArthur is a self confessed Bible agnostic.

Here is just one of many examples of John MacArthur's Biblical Agnosticism. In one of his sermons about Matthew 6:13 he has this to say: "The doxology is simply this: "For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen." That's a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don't dissect it. AND BY THE WAY, THERE'S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE THAT JESUS DIDN'T EVEN SAY THIS, THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN SOME OF YOUR VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE SAID IT OR NOT. Some manuscripts have it, some don't."

Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.

American Heritage Dictionary - Agnostic -
NOUN:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL ABOUT SOMETHING.

So, let's take the following few examples and ask our "originals only" brethren to tell us what their "inerrant Bible" actually says in these following places. I have basically limited this list to different historical events regarding the names of the people or the numbers of the things or people involved in these historical events.

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.

I hear from many unbelievers in the existence of a complete and infallible Bible when they say: "I'm not a bible agnostic! You don't know my heart. How can you say I am a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible? How dare you? You are being judgmental."

So I ask them if they are willing to take The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick two examples if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions

Among these "historic details" are the following examples:

Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - (NASB) "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/juds1830manassehmoses.htm

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam218michalmerab.htm

or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jud1415samsonsriddle.htm

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or ?A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible (NASB, NET, NKJV, ISV) - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."

Young's "literal" translation reads: He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN.

The Voice of 2012, one of the new Critical Text versions, actually says: God struck down 75 men

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam61950070or70.htm

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Look at the new "revision" of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1. The ESVs have TWO different readings and they are BOTH wrong.​

(Continued in next post):
(Article source provided in post #837):

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A similar thing happens with the constantly changing NASB. Notice it has TWO different readings depending on which edition you get and neither one agrees with any of the ESVs. From 1972 to 1977 they had 40/32 years, but now in the 1995 edition it reads 30/42 years, and BOTH ARE WRONG.

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel. reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or ?32 years old...reigned for 22 years? in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the latest ESV? You got it. The Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay Version 1950 - "Saul WAS A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."

By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."

Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?

For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scatterbrainseptuagint.htm

2 Samuel 15:7 forty years or four years?
Here is another one where the "literal" NASB continues to change its text from one edition to the next.
King James Bible (Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1972 - 1995 editions, Legacy Standard Bible 2021) - "And it came to pass AFTER FORTY YEARS, that Absalom said unto the king..."
ESV, NIV, NET, NASB 2020 edition, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 revision - "And at THE END OF FOUR YEARS Absolom said to the king..."
See why the KJB and the Hebrew text are right. Plus see the false footnotes found in many of these which change the Hebrew text.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam15740or4year.htm

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/7or3yearsoffamine.htm

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/4000or40000.htm

How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18?

2 Chronicles 36:9 KJB, NASB 1972-1995 editions, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days."

2 Chronicles 36:9 NIV, NASB 2020 edition, ESV 2011 edition, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT - "Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days."

Again, notice that in 2 Chronicles 36:9 the ESVs as well as the NASBs have come out with TWO different textual editions. The first ones followed the Hebrew text while the latest editions reject the Hebrew text as well as both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus LXX readings and went with the Alexandrinus LXX reading. Not even the so called Greek Septuagint versions agree among themselves. Neither do the Catholic versions agree among themselves either.

2 Chronicles 36:9 in the Hebrew text reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASBs 1972-1995 editions, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, Douay-Rheims)

or was he 18 years old as the NIV, Holman, NET, NASB 2020 edition, ESV 2007, 2016 editions!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem tell us?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm

Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?

Jeremiah 27:1 - Is there a scribal error in the King James Bible and in the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Jeremiah 27:1 KJB - "In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying...."

ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD."

The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jer271jehoiakimzedekiah.htm

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

King James Bible (ESV, NKJV, ASV) - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NASB 1963-1977 editions - But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NASB 1995 edition - But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/luke1042onethingneedfl.htm

Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB 1963 to 1995 editions, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) or 72 sent out? (NASB 2020 edition, NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)​

(Continued in next post):
(Article source provided in post #837)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Notice again in Matthew 18:22 the TWO different ESV translations of the same verse. The first 2 ESV editions followed the Greek text. The second 2 ESV just made up a number. The NASB changed its text too.

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not "until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times" (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB 1963 to 1995 editions, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NASB 2020 edition, NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011, 2016 editions, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 "this day have I begotten thee" (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or "today I have become your Father"? (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).

http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm

1 Thessalonians 2:7 "we were GENTLE among you" or "LITTLE CHILDREN among you"?

KJB (RV, ASV, ESV, NASB, CSB, ISV) - 1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."

NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 editions - "but we were GENTLE among you, like a mother caring for her little children."

NIV 2011 edition -"Instead, we were like YOUNG CHILDREN among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children."

Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 (NIRV 2014) - "we became LITTLE CHILDREN, Like a nursing mother caring for her own children."

Lexham English Bible 2012 (Tree of Life Version 2015) - "we became INFANTS in your midst, like a nursing mother cherishes her children,"

Another King James Bible Believer

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic who doesn't know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney​

Article Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Jim B]

Notice again in Matthew 18:22 the TWO different ESV translations of the same verse. The first 2 ESV editions followed the Greek text. The second 2 ESV just made up a number. The NASB changed its text too.

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not "until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times" (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB 1963 to 1995 editions, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NASB 2020 edition, NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011, 2016 editions, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 "this day have I begotten thee" (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or "today I have become your Father"? (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).

http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm

1 Thessalonians 2:7 "we were GENTLE among you" or "LITTLE CHILDREN among you"?

KJB (RV, ASV, ESV, NASB, CSB, ISV) - 1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."

NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 editions - "but we were GENTLE among you, like a mother caring for her little children."

NIV 2011 edition -"Instead, we were like YOUNG CHILDREN among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children."

Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 (NIRV 2014) - "we became LITTLE CHILDREN, Like a nursing mother caring for her own children."

Lexham English Bible 2012 (Tree of Life Version 2015) - "we became INFANTS in your midst, like a nursing mother cherishes her children,"

Another King James Bible Believer

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic who doesn't know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney​

Article Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

Why do you even post garbage like this? It's nothing but propaganda. Do you actually think that anyone would actually read this l-e-n-g-t-h-y post, never mind agree with what it says? If so, you are, as usual, deluded.

Do you actually think that there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God,? It most certainly is not the flawed, political book referred to as the King James Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

A person is a “bible agnostic” if they don’t believe if there is no actual bible in existence or not that is the infallible words of God. The word agnostic refers to a person who is not sure if there is a God or not. While a “bible agnostic” may be a Christian and who believes in God, they don’t know if there is a perfect Bible that they can hold in their hands. So where is their authority? This is the question one must ask.

 

[Jim B]

To all:

A person is a “bible agnostic” if they don’t believe if there is no actual bible in existence or not that is the infallible words of God. The word agnostic refers to a person who is not sure if there is a God or not. While a “bible agnostic” may be a Christian and who believes in God, they don’t know if there is a perfect Bible that they can hold in their hands. So where is their authority? This is the question one must ask.

Why must one ask such a ridiculous question? If you're implying that you know that your King James translation is the perfect, inerrant Bible, you're more deluded than I thought. What is your authority to claim that your outdated Englyshe translation, based on a limited set of source documents, ordered by a secular king to codify his version of Protestantism is the perfect Bible?

Do you know what a closed mind is? Closed!!!

 

[Jim B]

How does this sound? I know that the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is the perfect translation of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek texts. I am absolutely certain of this fact, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

The NRSV has been called the most accurate of English-language translations, based on the available manuscript evidence, textual analysis, and philological understanding. That's all the proof that I need!

Although I have no actual proof, I know in my heart that it was dictated word-for-word by God himself!