Actual differences in King James Versions

Amen!!!RaptureReady. I agree.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

RaptureReady said "God's word has always been perfect for that particular time."

So God's word changes over time?

RaptureReady said "Yes we do, they are found in the TR and not the modern mss/version."

Not 100%

RaptureReady said "God still preserves the plan of salvation in them. That is why I believe a person can be saved through reading another version beside the KJB."

I agree.

RaptureReady said "But they miss very important doctrines that Satan, I believe, did to get back at God if you will."

They miss no doctrines.

RaptureReady said "I have not forgot, but why post it? I'm sure that it mentions that we believe the KJB is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God."

Because I would like to point out to you that if it does mention the KJV, your church's Statement of Faith is inherently contradictory. It contains an extra-Biblical doctrine that requires a second authority, immediately after saying the Bible is the only source of doctrine and the only authority for doctrine.

RaptureReady said "How can you say this when you know that we do not have the original writings? We have manuscripts of those writings, but not the originals."

Preservation does not require the originals to still exist. Preservation of doctrines and meanings is what is important, not the ink.

 

So you are open to the idea that God has ordained another version for our time? Why would God allow "perfect" revisions for 150 years then not allow any further revisions... ever?

The NIV is the highest seller. Since you use the common usage argument to support the KJV, would you now concede that this argument favors the NIV?

So unless someone agrees with you on this issue they worship a god, not God?

Name one.

It would be important... and honest... at this point for you to acknowledge that no two of these mss are identical to each other... or the TR... or the KJV. In other words, the KJV is not a preservation of any single set of words. It was a new creation in 1611. It was not and is not the equivalent of the originals.

No one here has or has seen the original manuscript of the KJV that was delivered to the printers. It was lost many years ago.

So when you say that the KJV was perfect, you have absolutely no proof that today's KJV is equivalent to the original "perfect" one created by Anglican scholars.

MV's do two things. They address language issues to make the text more understandable to modern readers. But they also consider the whole scope of the evidence for the originals that God has providentially preserved.

They have not "changed, added and even sometimes deleted scripture" as you claim because they didn't assume as you do that the KJV was equivalent to the original God given texts. They assume that the mss evidence, not the KJV, is the source for determining what God said.

Most of them favor the oldest mss over the more numerous mss. One of the stronger arguments for this approach from an IFB perspective is that the oldest mss date from before the worst corruptions of the Byzantine (Orthodox) and Roman Catholic churches.

Several versions including the NKJV, MKJV, and LITV use the TR and translate it accurately.

So? RCC and Anglican tradition are not authoritative for determining which text to translate.

 

Common argument for KJVO saying 'printing', 'printing','printing' many times. Nothing new to me.

No, I do not think it was reason because of printing. There were facts there was different words, WORDS are more louder than just a tiny 'letter'.

Also, in fact, there were about SIXTY translators during council of Trent. King James sent sixty translators divided into three groups to three universities - Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminister too. They have been working by translating from Greek/Hebrews into English, it took about 7 years.

There must have witnesses to see the workings of English Bible translated from Greek and Hebrews in progress for long time before King James I approved it.

If suppose only have ONE person doing working on translating language to othger language in the Bible, there is not enought to prove it.

I do BELIEVE there was more than two persons as witnesses version or Bible for approved after printing BEFORE make final decision for edition of the version.

Impossible for a person being approved version or edition Bible without have witnesses to reading throughout books, chapters, verses to make sure find any errors from printing.

Obivously, I believe they did have witnesses to reading throughout books, chapters, & verses to check out every words AFTER it printed, - FIRST before have approved for go ahead make copies as edition Bibles.

Men do make mistakes on versions throughout 400 years since 1611 A.V. but, also, many men do make mistakes long time before year 1611.

Not because of printing. I believe because of humans' mistakes.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

--------------------------------------------------
Common argument for KJVO saying 'printing', 'printing','printing' many times. Nothing new to me.

No, I do not think it was reason because of printing. There were facts there was different words, WORDS are more louder than just a tiny 'letter'.

Also, in fact, there were about SIXTY translators during council of Trent. King James sent sixty translators divided into three groups to three universities - Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminister too. They have been working by translating from Greek/Hebrews into English, it took about 7 years.

---------------------------------------------------

Go back and read BOTH links of FACTS that I gave here on this thread and compare them. Then you just might be able to see the REAL problem and the REAL DIFFERENCES and come out from the cloud many seem to be currently in.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "Go back and read BOTH links of FACTS that I gave here on this thread and compare them. Then you just might be able to see the REAL problem and the REAL DIFFERENCES and come out from the cloud many seem to be currently in."

Why doesn't your link list where God was omitted in the KJV from Phil 1:14, Jesus from Jude 1:25, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 4:25? Is the KJV trying to eliminate the Trinity?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Why doesn't your link list where God was omitted in the KJV from Phil 1:14, Jesus from Jude 1:25, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 4:25? Is the KJV trying to eliminate the Trinity?
--------------------------------------------------


Because those things were added in the modern versions from the corrupt texts they come from.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

What about Italic words in KJV????

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Michelle said "Because those things were added in the modern versions from the corrupt texts they come from."

How do you know? How do you know they were added to certain texts and not deleted from others?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

What about Italic words in KJV????

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
--------------------------------------------------


Askjo did an excellent job of explaining this to you, and in a way that you, (ecspecially you) out of anyone else here, surely should understand.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Nope. The fact is the words in italics has changed over time - I don't have the list here with me, but the use of italics has expanded from the 1611. Also, there are spots where the italicized words are unneccesary. The verse makes sense without them.

 

RE: The 400 KJV errors: No problem Dr. Peter Ruckman calls them “advanced revelations”.

Yes, believe it or not, according to Dr. ruckman they are inspired errors inserted by the Holy Spirit unbeknown to the KJV translators, later to be discovered by Brother Ruckman (and him alone).

In fact he wrote a book called The Salient Verses in which he unlocks the mystery of 200 of these “advanced revelations”. Only 200 more to go The Salient Verses Part II?

“Advanced revelation” is how “Passover-pascha” has been transformed into “Easter” (as an example).

Dr Ruckman contends that 1611AD was the year that God “slammed the door shut” on the canon of Scripture, the English correcting the Greek.

So, the poor Greeks believing Luke who wrote “pascha-Passover” had somehow being duped by God, awaiting the magic year of 1611 and three plus centuries later for The Salient Verses (or the Ruckman version of The Emperor’s New Clothes) to appear on the scene to correct the prophets and apostles.

Few KJVO realize that this is the only way (though a myth) to explain the 400 differences between the several revisions of the KJV, whether Oxford or Cambridge (which were both published in 1611 and were different) or Nelson (which came later and was different than the other two).

This reasoning has it's own flaws of logic (which may be why many KJVO discount reason and logic). but that seems no hindrance to convoluted thinking.

No translation is perfect. Every one contains the errors of men which is evidenced by the several hundred years of corrections of the KJV.

God cannot make the smallest error of any kind including spelling, typos, etc. These errors are/were the errors of men.

Which is the edition( Cambridge/Oxford/Nelson) and year (1611/1769/1850) which contains the "pure" and "perfect" words of God, seeing that things which are different are not the same (or doesn't that count when we observe the hundreds of differences between the several editions of the KJV)?


HankD

 

HankD,

Well saying!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Actually, the question to you Hank, is where can a common English speaking person today find the PURE words of God that He has promised them and to which He said He would preserve? Where can this be found in our language Hank? Can you read the Bible and confidently say and believe that everything in it can be trusted and is the very words of God? If not, I feel sorry for you, and anyone who would come under your teaching of this lie. I also would not want to be standing before God now (at this present moment being in Him), or in heaven without faith in what God has said in anything, as HIS very words are those that do and will judge me.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, Geneva, Tyndale, and other faithful English translations.

 

michelle said "Actually, the question to you Hank, is where can a common English speaking person today find the PURE words of God that He has promised them and to which He said He would preserve?"

I'm not Hank, but I'll answer for myself. The Geneva, the KJV, the LITV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV, and others, if properly interpreted.

michelle said "Can you read the Bible and confidently say and believe that everything in it can be trusted and is the very words of God?"

Yes.

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "Can you read the Bible and confidently say and believe that everything in it can be trusted and is the very words of God?"

Yes.
--------------------------------------------------


You only show your own contradiction and confusion of the above statement as expressed in your stated belief below:


--------------------------------------------------
I'm not Hank, but I'll answer for myself. The Geneva, the KJV, the LITV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV, and others, if properly interpreted.
--------------------------------------------------


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Spin, Michelle, spin.

 

No contradiction here. There are many valid English Bible translations - both older and newer than the KJV.

 

michelle said "You only show your own contradiction and confusion of the above statement as expressed in your stated belief below"

No, I neither contradicted myself, nor am confused. Instead, you simply do not understand my position, because of your presuppositions. My position is the historical Baptist position. My position is the KJV translators' position. My position is the historical Christian position. Has the church been confused and contradictory for all this time, or is it instead that you simply misunderstand something? I think the latter.