Featured Is God, God?

Hi Stilllearning:

1) What scripture says or suggests Jesus was reading from a Greek translation? Actually the NT text matches neither the LXX, missing one clause, nor the Hebrew text, missing a different clause. Whether Jesus was reading in Hebrew and including references from other Hebrew passages, or reading a text in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but now lost, is unknown.

2) There was never a time when all Christians, or even all English speaking Christians, believed the TR was God's perfect word.

3) You did not change the typo "a accurate" to something, i.e. accurate or inaccurate." I have no interest in nonsense.

4) Your assertion the KJB is "perfectly preserved word" has no basis in scripture. It is a man-made doctrine. My assertion is the NASB95 is the best available English translation is also a man-made (Van-made) doctrine, that has no basis in scripture. I would certainly be willing to consider a KJV translation of a given verse or passage as better than the NASB, but those who dogmatically claim the KJV is always better seem to me to be throwing the baby, the inspired text, out with the bath water.

God Bless and goodbye.

 

Someone needs to go and throw the original texts out, because the KJV corrected all their mistakes.....

 

Be tough to throw out since we don't have them

 

So am I. Me too.

 

Those holding to extreme Kjvo would hold that in the 1611 version, God gave us in English a perfect copy of those originals, so we still have them!

 

You have not demonstrated that all Christians everywhere agreed that the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus were God's perfect word for the New Testament. You are merely assuming what you want to believe without demonstrating that it is historically accurate.

Even Erasmus's own five editions of the Greek New Testament had some textual differences and variations, and they had additions where Erasmus added readings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that were not found in any known Greek New Testament manuscripts and where Erasmus introduced conjectures.

Erasmus's first two editions of his Greek text did not have at least three or four whole verses that are found in some later TR editions [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, Revelation 21:26], and his later three editions still did not have at least two of those verses

 

present KJV editions are not the 1769

Likely you do not use the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV since no publisher today publishes a KJV edition that is identical to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 edition is said by a number of Bible scholars to have had over 100 errors.

In my partial examination of over 400 editions of the KJV, I have found that over 400 changes have been made to the KJV since 1769, some as late as the 1870's to the early 1900's. You likely use a post-1900's KJV edition, not a 1769.

For one example, the 1769 Oxford edition had "LORD" [Jehovah] at around 90 verses where most present KJV editions have "Lord" [Adonai].

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and over 100 spelling differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

Are you suggesting or admitting that English-speaking believers did not have a completely trustworthy printed edition of the Bible until at least 1769?

The 1769 edition of the KJV still had some errors in it or introduced some new errors.

Since the 1980's when some publishers of the KJV starting printing their editions from a computer-based text, over 100 new variations and errors have been introduced into a number of present KJV editions.

Joshua 13:14
the tribes of Levi (1985 VB) (1987, 2001, 2002 TN) (EB) (JVIPB) (2004 World) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2008 Pilot) (2010 Baker) (2010 BRO) (1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2010, 2013 Holman) (APB) (2011 AMP) (2011, 2012 Barbour) (2011 PJB) (HKJVSB) (2012 F-S)

the tribe of Levi (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

Your KJV edition is missing or does not have three whole verses found in one psalm in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible and in the editions of the Bishops' Bible that had the book of Psalms from the Great Bible.

Your KJV edition is missing or does not have many words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the KJV is adding some words that God did not say or give to the prophets and apostles?

Most present editions of the KJV add over 140 words that are not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and they omit or are missing over 40 words that are found in the 1611 edition.

 

I found no difference in my 1611, 1769 Oxford, and 1873 Oxford, other than spelling, at Rev. 18:22.

Care to elaborate?

I just checked all 3.

 

Since we do not have any of the originals around anymore, how can he be sure that the Kjv did not add in those 'extra verses", and that the MV actually got it closer to what was otiginally written?

 

To be consistent it would have to be admitted that we don't even have those since all we have a printer copies.

 

Printer copies of what?

 

We don't have the handwritten KJV manuscripts. Only what the printer printed.

 

Do you have an actual Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1769 or a present edition that you merely assume is the 1769?

The renderings I listed are the actual ones in an Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1769, and they differ from present Oxford editions.