Why we should use the KJV Bible on the Internet.

[RLT63]

Yahweh accepts His name in English? How do you know? did you ask Him? Or are you just spitballing here.

The fact is it doesn't matter how many bibles translate it Jehovah. All we have is YHWH with no vowels and so most bibles carried the tradition of Lord. I hope you don't mind Riburt!

I think he has an agenda

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think he has an agenda

Of course he does! He is trying to convert people so they will attend the kingdom o0f darkness halls! I will battle him everywhere until he leaves or accepts the Bible as written and not reinterpreted by the Watchtower or the rapture or death, whichever comes first!

 

[Jim B]

The fact is RL that every English version of the Bible that translates the Divine Name into English unaltered renders it Jehovah. You might note as well that the translators of the KJV of the Bible tried to remove it, but were unable to, how do you explain that? Jehovah accepts His name in English, and after His name was spread throughout the earth Ex 9:16 He did allow some versions to almost remove it, but they still overlooked it in a few places. Do you know of any version that was able to remove it completely?

"Jehovah" accepts His name in English? What is the basis for your saying that? Other names for YHWH are Yahweh, The Lord. Because it is all consonants in Hebrew and was never meant by the Jews to be spoken, there is no correct translation of the tetragrammaton into English.

 

[Jay Ross]

Me thinks that the KJV is not a useful manual to use to understand the ponderings on the internet and how the internet works.

The law of garbage in garbage out is the law most dominates on the internet

 

[Robert Gwin]

No. Adonai is not in the NKJV. It's in the DBY and the Vulgate.

What word do you think is translated Lord Rl? At any rate it is in the oldest copies from which the Bible was taken. I will admit, I am ignorant of the sources the NKJV was translated from, but for it to be called after King James, no doubt they would have had to use the same sources as the original authorized version. YHWH is rendered Jehovah in English, whereas Adonai is rendered Lord

hwhy Y@hovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); Proper Name, Strong #: 3068 Jehovah = "the existing One" the proper name of the one true God unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136 KJV Word Usage and Count LORD 6510 GOD 4 JEHOVAH 4 variant 1 !wda 'adown (aw-done'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 113 firm, strong, lord, master lord, master reference to men 1a superintendent of household,of affairs 1a master 1a king reference to God 1a the Lord God 1a Lord of the whole earth lords, kings reference to men 1b proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b master 1b husband 1b prophet 1b governor 1b prince 1b king reference to God 1b Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") my lord, my master reference to men 1c master 1c husband 1c prophet 1c prince 1c king 1c father 1c Moses 1c priest 1c theophanic angel 1c captain 1c general recognition of superiority reference to God 1c my Lord,my Lord and my God 1c Adonai (parallel with Yahweh) KJV Word Usage and Count lord 197 master(s) 105 Lord 31 owner 1 sir 1

 

[Robert Gwin]

Yahweh accepts His name in English? How do you know? did you ask Him? Or are you just spitballing here.

The fact is it doesn't matter how many bibles translate it Jehovah. All we have is YHWH with no vowels and so most bibles carried the tradition of Lord. I hope you don't mind Riburt!

How else can you explain the translators of the King James version being unable to leave it out sir? Note also that when God's name became well known throughout the earth, that many translations have been able to remove it, however not one that I am aware of can remove it fully even still. Do you know of any Ron?

Look at the people who bear His name sir, first of all it was prophesied Rom 10:13-15 and secondly look at how far they have advanced. Yes it is clear to me Jehovah accepts His name, even though it varies among languages. YHWH does not translate into Lord any way you slice it Ron, and of course no vowels are in the Hebrew language, so again I ask, do you argue about all words in the Bible translated into English from Hebrew, or just this one?

 

[Robert Gwin]

"Jehovah" accepts His name in English? What is the basis for your saying that? Other names for YHWH are Yahweh, The Lord. Because it is all consonants in Hebrew and was never meant by the Jews to be spoken, there is no correct translation of the tetragrammaton into English.

Yahweh is the way God's name is pronounced in Hebrew Jim. It is perfectly acceptable, but is not English, Jehovah is the English rendering of God's name. The reason I say God accepts it is that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible were extremely intelligent. No doubt you realize it was their intent to change God's name to LORD in all places where it occurs in the Bible, however they seemingly overlooked it 4 times, does that make sense to you? Ex 9:16. In fact, as far as I know no one has been able to entirely remove it from their versions in it's shortened form Jah. Do you know of any version Jim that has been able to remove it sir?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How else can you explain the translators of the King James version being unable to leave it out sir? Note also that when God's name became well known throughout the earth, that many translations have been able to remove it, however not one that I am aware of can remove it fully even still. Do you know of any Ron?

Look at the people who bear His name sir, first of all it was prophesied Rom 10:13-15 and secondly look at how far they have advanced. Yes it is clear to me Jehovah accepts His name, even though it varies among languages. YHWH does not translate into Lord any way you slice it Ron, and of course no vowels are in the Hebrew language, so again I ask, do you argue about all words in the Bible translated into English from Hebrew, or just this one?

Once again you are assuming Jehovah is correct. It simply cannot be proven! It is accpeted, but not proven. Just like evolution- it is accepted but not proven.

I take Yahweh after many Jewish believers call the name of God from th eOT.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Once again you are assuming Jehovah is correct. It simply cannot be proven! It is accpeted, but not proven. Just like evolution- it is accepted but not proven.

I take Yahweh after many Jewish believers call the name of God from th eOT.

Yahweh is His name Ron, nothing wrong with that. Since I post, and speak in English, I use His name in English. In fact I have noticed that recently names are being stated in the original language more and more. Take Jorge for example.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How else can you explain the translators of the King James version being unable to leave it out sir? Note also that when God's name became well known throughout the earth, that many translations have been able to remove it, however not one that I am aware of can remove it fully even still. Do you know of any Ron?

Look at the people who bear His name sir, first of all it was prophesied Rom 10:13-15 and secondly look at how far they have advanced. Yes it is clear to me Jehovah accepts His name, even though it varies among languages. YHWH does not translate into Lord any way you slice it Ron, and of course no vowels are in the Hebrew language, so again I ask, do you argue about all words in the Bible translated into English from Hebrew, or just this one?

Once again you are assuming Jehovah is correct. It simply cannot be proven! It is accpeted, but not proven. Just like evolution- it is accepted but not proven.

I take Yahweh after many Jewish believers call the name of God from th eOT.

Yahweh is His name Ron, nothing wrong with that. Since I post, and speak in English, I use His name in English. In fact I have noticed that recently names are being stated in the original language more and more. Take Jorge for example.

So why do you all fuss and fume about you using Gods name as Jehovah? That is not the name in Hebrew, nor is it the trsansliterated name from Hebrew. Even Yahweh though more accurate may not be correct.

But Irregardless , the name Jesus is the name now that is above all names.

And seeing how you make a fuss over Lord substituting Yahweh in English bibles- why do you not recognize Phil. 2 as Jesus is Yahweh as it would appear in a Hebrew New Testament?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Once again you are assuming Jehovah is correct. It simply cannot be proven! It is accpeted, but not proven. Just like evolution- it is accepted but not proven.

I take Yahweh after many Jewish believers call the name of God from th eOT.


So why do you all fuss and fume about you using Gods name as Jehovah? That is not the name in Hebrew, nor is it the trsansliterated name from Hebrew. Even Yahweh though more accurate may not be correct.

But Irregardless , the name Jesus is the name now that is above all names.

And seeing how you make a fuss over Lord substituting Yahweh in English bibles- why do you not recognize Phil. 2 as Jesus is Yahweh as it would appear in a Hebrew New Testament?

Yahweh is fine Ron, but you might examine your motives sir, like I said, do you believe Hebrew should not be translated to English, or just that word sir? Rather obvious huh?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yahweh is fine Ron, but you might examine your motives sir, like I said, do you believe Hebrew should not be translated to English, or just that word sir? Rather obvious huh?

Well if you had bothered to pay attention to all my postings to you, you would know you have just made a very foolish implication.

I examne mine constantly. Maybe you should focus more on you than me.

 

[Davy]

See posts #6 and #7

Those posts are not telling much of the truth about the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which Wescott and Hort used to create their new 1880s Greek New Testament text.

The Vaticanus was DISCOVERED in the Vatican in 1475. There is NO EVIDENCE of its existence back to the 3rd century A.D. like you have said in your post #6.

The Sinaiticus was only discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf in a Greek monastery. He is the one that attempted to date it, which it has not been proven to be as old as existing Greek manuscripts that show oxidation. The Sinaiticus is a 'white' colored manuscripts, SHOWING LITTLE AGING. And one Greek scholar at that monastery, Simonedes, claimed he created Sinaiticus as it was to be a gift to the Czar. It had so many errors that it became unpresentable. That is why the manuscript was found going to waste in a corner.

EVIDENCE = Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are MODERN Greek texts, much NEWER than the Greek Majority texts which Erasmus used for the Textus Receptus.

So because of what you've been posting, kind of saying one thing out of one side of your mouth, and then something totally different out of the other side of your mouth, it shows you are pushing confusion about the corruptions of the Critical texts, trying to give them an air of authenticity, while DOWNPLAYING the history of the Traditional Majority Greek texts.

 

[Nancy]

I like the NKJV, the NASB95 and the Net Bible Full Notes Edition. The NET is available online for free. It has the most extensive notes I've ever seen.

Ha, those are my two (now three) most used bibles, NKJV and NASB, not sure NASB is the 95 though...and yes, I also have a paraphrase but rarely use that anymore. And yes, as you know I now have the NET full notes study bible an I love it...do not understand all the symbols and such yet but will soon.

 

[RLT63]

Those posts are not telling much of the truth about the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which Wescott and Hort used to create their new 1880s Greek New Testament text.

The Vaticanus was DISCOVERED in the Vatican in 1475. There is NO EVIDENCE of its existence back to the 3rd century A.D. like you have said in your post #6.

The Sinaiticus was only discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf in a Greek monastery. He is the one that attempted to date it, which it has not been proven to be as old as existing Greek manuscripts that show oxidation. The Sinaiticus is a 'white' colored manuscripts, SHOWING LITTLE AGING. And one Greek scholar at that monastery, Simonedes, claimed he created Sinaiticus as it was to be a gift to the Czar. It had so many errors that it became unpresentable. That is why the manuscript was found going to waste in a corner.

EVIDENCE = Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are MODERN Greek texts, much NEWER than the Greek Majority texts which Erasmus used for the Textus Receptus.

So because of what you've been posting, kind of saying one thing out of one side of your mouth, and then something totally different out of the other side of your mouth, it shows you are pushing confusion about the corruptions of the Critical texts, trying to give them an air of authenticity, while DOWNPLAYING the history of the Traditional Majority Greek texts.

I don’t defend Vaticanus or Sinaiticus at all. They are bad enough on their own you don’t have to make unsubstantiated claims to make them look worse they are both poor documents.

 

[Davy]

I don’t defend Vaticanus or Sinaiticus at all. They are bad enough on their own you don’t have to make unsubstantiated claims to make them look worse they are both poor documents.

And now you are trying to COUNTER what I said about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being NEWER MODERN Greek texts (meaning much newer than the Majority texts).

Vaticanus was DISCOVERED in the Vatican library in 1475. It has NO PRIOR HISTORY! Wow, you'd think a 3rd century Greek manuscript would have a prior history, duh! Doesn't take much common sense to know it is NOT a 3rd century manuscript.

Sinaiticus has an even more sordid discovery. Modern scholars have believed ONE MAN'S CLAIM that Sinaiticus is older than the Majority texts! Now that's real... scholarship, isn't it? Also, the manuscript is WHITE IN COLOR showing not hardly any oxidation like ALL the ancient Greek texts have with their bronze color! Sinaiticus is white because it is a MODERN TEXT. It was discovered in 1859, and has no prior documented history.

 

[RLT63]

And now you are trying to COUNTER what I said about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being NEWER MODERN Greek texts (meaning much newer than the Majority texts).

Vaticanus was DISCOVERED in the Vatican library in 1475. It has NO PRIOR HISTORY! Wow, you'd think a 3rd century Greek manuscript would have a prior history, duh! Doesn't take much common sense to know it is NOT a 3rd century manuscript.

Sinaiticus has an even more sordid discovery. Modern scholars have believed ONE MAN'S CLAIM that Sinaiticus is older than the Majority texts! Now that's real... scholarship, isn't it? Also, the manuscript is WHITE IN COLOR showing not hardly any oxidation like ALL the ancient Greek texts have with their bronze color! Sinaiticus is white because it is a MODERN TEXT. It was discovered in 1859, and has no prior documented history.

Look I’m not going to defend those documents. I’ve already stated they are poor documents. I don’t know about some of your claims but I agree they are poor documents

 

[Robert Gwin]

Well if you had bothered to pay attention to all my postings to you, you would know you have just made a very foolish implication.

I examne mine constantly. Maybe you should focus more on you than me.

Really? How many other Hebrew words do you reject in English sir, I don't recall seeing that before?

 

[RLT63]

Ha, those are my two (now three) most used bibles, NKJV and NASB, not sure NASB is the 95 though...and yes, I also have a paraphrase but rarely use that anymore. And yes, as you know I now have the NET full notes study bible an I love it...do not understand all the symbols and such yet but will soon.

We are on the same page!

 

[RLT63]

Really? How many other Hebrew words do you reject in English sir, I don't recall seeing that before?

Is Jehovah an English word? You might want to look into that.