KJV versus Modern Translations
- Thread starter CoreIssue
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
From the 1611 KJV...
You proved we don't use the 1611 today. You did not prove Calvinism.
We can't do it ourselves. We must repent and rely on God to do for us by his grace.
Romans 8
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
you suppose that "old" means "better", do you not?
My reason (and it's not just "my" reason) for supposing that has already been stated, and so far you've given no argument against it.
"...that you soon not be shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us..." Does Paul acknowledge that there were things written (which are subject to being copied) in his day that were a corruption of the truth? Yes, he does.
This is from II Thessalonians, one of the first NT documents to be written - so again, Paul cannot possibly be referring to inaccurate copies! He's talking about faked letters - documents that were rejected altogether by the early church and never incorporated into the New Testament.
You accuse me of inappropriateness", but look how you've leave the minority 2 at the scene while removing the majority, an absolutely unfair distinction. All we have are copies, some of which tell the truth and others which do not.
I'm sorry... your illustration was evidently so poor I should have abandoned it altogether! As you now admit, all the 'evidence' is hearsay, but do you see no possible distinction between 'close' hearsay and hearsay at a greater 'distance' in time?
Bear in mind that Hippolytus could just as easily be quoting from Mark or Luke, and Irenaeus could be quoting Matthew 22:14.
Lol from the man that posted video of James White one of the top Reformed apologists on YouTube.
Note there are 4 other Reformed folks there . Also SG was posting to support your arguments had nothing to do with Reformed theology. So why the quip . Man you think more about Reformed theology than Reformed folks. Humm
Somthing for your side of the argument. Ask why does the TR the Greek or NT part of the KJV follow the Latin vulgate (Catholic Church Version ) for grammar and verb tense over the Greek?
Blessings
Bill
Besides the language up date as seen posted above by SovereignGrace here is a few other things.
Note modern version refers to all KJV Bibles after the 1611
Here is the Leter reference/ reference list
Abbreviations:
S - Stephens 1550
B - Beza 1598
E - Elzevir 1624
C - Complutensian Polyglot 1522
Er - Erasmus 1527
Vul - Clementine Vulgate 1592
Tyn - Tyndale 1535
Gen - Genevan Bible 1560
Bish - Bishops Bible 1568
Mark 8:14 Modern editions italicize the disciples, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Mark 9:42 Modern editions italicize these, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C Vul.
John 8:6 Modern editions italicize as though he heard them not at end of verse, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C S1546 S1549 and the Bishops' Bible.
Acts 1:4 Modern editions italicize them after assembled together with, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:3 Modern editions italicize because I know, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:18 Modern editions italicize and before to turn, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
1 Cor 14:10 Modern editions print the words of them in ordinary type, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 had them in italics, in accordance with Vul.
Heb 12:24 Modern editions italicize that of before Abel, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon Er.
1 John 3:16 Modern editions italicize of God after love, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C B.
Rev 11:14 Modern editions italicize and before behold, in accordance with S. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B Vul.
Rev 19:18 Modern editions italicize both before free, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C.
Then we have the following other changes from the original 1611 .
* Mat 3:12 Add he before will burn up.
Mat 6:3 Add hand after right.
* Mat 9:34 Omit the before devils.
* Mat 12:23 Add not before this the son.
* Mat 13:6 Read had no root instead of had not root.
Mat 16:16 Add the before Christ.
Mat 16:19 Add and before whatsoever thou shalt loose.
Mat 26:75 Read word instead of words.
Mat 27:22 Read Pilate saith instead of Pilate said.
* Mat 27:52 Add the before saints.
Mark 2:4 Add the before press.
Mark 5:6 Read he ran instead of he came.
* Mark 6:7 Read he called instead of he calleth.
* Mark 6:53 Read Gennesaret instead of Genesareth. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
Mark 10:18 Read [there is] none good but one instead of there is no man good, but one.
Mark 11:8 Read branches off the trees instead of branches of the trees.
Luke 1:3 Add all before things.
Luke 1:74 Read hand instead of hands.
Luke 3:21 Omit and before it came to pass.
* Luke 8:8 Add had before said.
* Luke 11:16 Read others instead of other.
Luke 17:34 Add and before the other shall be left.
* Luke 18:9 Read others instead of other.
Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.
Luke 20:12 Read sent a third instead of sent the third.
Luke 23:19 Read cast into prison instead of cast in prison.
John 5:18 Transpose not only because he to because he not only.
John 7:16 Add and said after Jesus answered them.
John 8:30 Read these words instead of those words.
John 11:3 Read his sisters instead of his sister.
* John 11:34 Read They said unto him instead of They say unto him.
John 12:22 Read tell Jesus instead of told Jesus.
John 15:20 Read than his lord instead of than the Lord.
* John 16:25 Add but before the time. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
John 21:17 Read He saith unto him instead of he said unto him.
Acts 2:22 Add and before wonders.
* Acts 5:34 Add the before law.
Acts 7:35 Read by the hand instead of by the hands.
Acts 8:32 Read his shearer instead of the shearer.
* Acts 10:9 Add top after upon the house.
* Acts 18:5 Add the before spirit.
* Acts 19:19 Transpose also of them to of them also.
* Acts 24:14 Add in before the prophets.
Acts 24:24 Read Jewess instead of Jew.
Acts 27:18 Read And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next [day] instead of And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day.
Rom 3:24 Read Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.
Rom 4:12 Add who before also walk.
Rom 6:12 Transpose reign therefore to therefore reign.
* Rom 7:2 Read law of her husband instead of law of the husband.
Rom 7:13 Transpose Was that then to Was then that.
Rom 11:28 Read for your sakes instead of for your sake.
Rom 12:2 Read and acceptable instead of that acceptable.
Rom 14:6 Read regardeth the day instead of regardeth a day.
Rom 14:10 Add for before we shall all stand.
* 1 Cor 4:9 Read appointed to death instead of approved to death.
1 Cor 7:32 Read things that belong instead of things that belongeth.
1 Cor 10:28 Add for before the earth is.
1 Cor 12:28 Read helps, governments instead of helps in governments.
* 1 Cor 13:2 Read have not charity instead of have no charity.
* 1 Cor 14:15 Add I before will pray.
* 1 Cor 14:18 Read than ye all instead of than you all.
1 Cor 14:23 Read one place instead of some place.
1 Cor 15:6 Read After that instead of And that.
1 Cor 15:41 Read and another glory of the moon instead of another of the moon.
1 Cor 15:48 Add also before that are earthy.
1 Cor 16:22 Read anathema, Maranatha instead of Anathema Maranatha.
* 2 Cor 5:1 Read made with hands instead of made with hand.
2 Cor 5:2 Read groan, earnestly desiring instead of groan earnestly, desiring.
2 Cor 5:20 Omit that before be ye reconciled.
2 Cor 8:21 Add also before in the sight.
2 Cor 9:5 Add and before not.
2 Cor 9:5 Add as before of covetousness.
2 Cor 9:6 Add also after reap twice.
2 Cor 11:26 Read journeyings instead of journeying.
2 Cor 11:32 Add of the Damascenes after the city.
* Gal Title Add the Apostle before to the Galatians. 1611 followed another source. 1769: E. 1611: S.
Gal 3:13 Add a before tree.
* Gal 5:15 Add that after take heed.
* Eph 1:9 Read hath purposed instead of had purposed.
Eph 4:24 Read the new man instead of that new man.
* Eph 6:24 Add Amen at end of verse. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S E. 1611: Vul.
Phil 4:6 Read requests instead of request.
2 Th 2:14 Read our Lord Jesus Christ instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 1:4 Add godly before edifying.
* 1 Tim 2:9 Read shamefacedness instead of shamefastness.
2 Tim 1:7 Add and before of love.
* 2 Tim 1:12 Omit I before am persuaded.
2 Tim 2:19 Read this seal instead of the seal.
2 Tim 4:8 Add all before them also.
2 Tim 4:13 Add and the books after bring [with thee].
Heb 3:10 Read their heart instead of their hearts.
Heb 8:8 Add with before the house of Judah.
Heb 11:23 Add were before not afraid.
Heb 12:1 Omit unto before the race.
James 5:2 Add are before motheaten.
1 Pet 2:1 Add all before evil speakings.
1 Pet 2:5 Read sacrifices instead of sacrifice.
1 Pet 2:6 Add also after Wherefore.
* 1 Pet 5:10 Read called us unto instead of called us into.
1 John 2:16 Add and before the lust of the eyes.
* 1 John 3:17 Read have need instead of hath need.
1 John 5:12 Add of God after hath not the Son.
Jude 1:25 Add both before now and ever.
Rev 1:4 Add which are before in Asia.
Rev 1:11 Add unto before Philadelphia.
Rev 5:13 Add and before honour.
Rev 5:13 Add and before glory.
Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.
Rev 13:6 Read them that dwell instead of them that dwelt.
* Rev 17:4 Read precious stones instead of precious stone.
* Rev 22:2 Read on either side instead of of either side
Hope this helps . Note none of the above changes are spelling or grammar. It’s translation differences .
Blessings
Bill
Last edited:
To be meaningful all sides in the Bible and manuscript discussion needed be present.
The KJVO and Calvinist usually one and the same.
Your question is part of the video discussion.
All your wanting to do is distract from the presentation.
The big argument for the KJV that was repeated many times was faith. Not facts, not history, not linguistics but faith.
Ok but the Calvinist as you say are the ones on your side .
None KJV onlyist are Calvinist on your video.
If they are one in the same why use them to support your argument.
So what are you doing? If both are one in the same both are wrong then your argument is wrong by default . Only logical conclusion is your starting a argument to either watch the fight or toy with others that you disagree with .
Strange.
Bill
None KJV onlyist are Calvinist on your video.
If they are one in the same why use them to support your argument.
So what are you doing? If both are one in the same both are wrong then your argument is wrong by default . Only logical conclusion is your starting a argument to either watch the fight or toy with others that you disagree with .
Strange.
Bill
I do not see any of the ones critical of what is said in videos actually quoting videos.
They just go straight into the old Pro KJV arguments based on their personal opinions.
Think again. I know Akerberg is not a Calvinist.
They just go straight into the old Pro KJV arguments based on their personal opinions.
Think again. I know Akerberg is not a Calvinist.
Correct he is the moderator read up on the rest .
Start with James White he has hair in your video no so much now ? Read up on the rest .
Also check out the editors on the 6 of the top 10 Bible translations . It’s brutal bro
Blessings
Bill
Start with James White he has hair in your video no so much now ? Read up on the rest .
Also check out the editors on the 6 of the top 10 Bible translations . It’s brutal bro
Blessings
Bill
Dude it’s his signature . Not a part of his response. Like you have in blue at the bottom of your page .
Blessings
Bill
Dr. John Ankerberg is far more than the moderator.
John Ankerberg - Wikipedia
Homepage - Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show
I'm not aware of any Calvinistic emphasis on the sovereignty of God among proponents of KJVOnly (although for all I know some may exist).
I do use and love the KJV, although I'm not strictly KJVOnly in the true sense of the term.
He was acting as a moderator in the debate between both sides I was talking about his position.
I understand who he is . Also just use his home page to get his information. Like you did . Wikipedia is questionable. The site can be edited by users .
They have in the past had questionable entries on their site . Like reference to Jesus being a part of Christian mythology ie not being real . This was removed but still the site is not friendly to those that call themselves Christians.
Blessings
Bill
I understand who he is . Also just use his home page to get his information. Like you did . Wikipedia is questionable. The site can be edited by users .
They have in the past had questionable entries on their site . Like reference to Jesus being a part of Christian mythology ie not being real . This was removed but still the site is not friendly to those that call themselves Christians.
Blessings
Bill
But it shows he is a Calvinist.
The News UNIT: Pastor Chris Holman: From Roman Catholicism to KJV ONLY CALVINIST
https://brandplucked.webs.com/calvinismkjb.htm
For clarity on my point being a Calvinist does not make you KJVO. Neither does it say you're not.
Pretty much the same with every denomination and group with the exception of JW and the NWT.
Their are a few about 5 to 10 percent KJV only are Reformed . They are hard to find but there. There is a Presbyterian group here in the states not sure of their name though .
Blessings
Bill
Well, this may be problematic to you but it's not problematic to me.
Some ppl might regard me as KJVO but although I use the KJV gladly I try to avoid making sweeping, inaccurate claims about the KJV.
That is the way he works. I have listened to him often from 1980 on.
He used to love to have Dr. Walter Martin on. He had always both sides represented with the best each side can present. Just as a he did in these series of videos.
Last edited:
Similar threads
