Is the KJV weak on Sin and Salvation?

The bleeding continues...

Blood substitutes (from the KJV)

Genesis 9:5 – substituted “lifeblood” in the NKJV
Ex 4:25,26 - NKJV and NAS add "blood" (KJV uses "bloody")
Ex 22:2,3 – substituted “bloodguiltiness”
Lev 16:3 - the NKJV adds “the blood of a”
Lev 18:6,12,13,17, - NAS adds “blood relative” (KJV uses kin or kinswoman).
Lev 19:16 - NKJV and NAS substituted “life”
Lev 20:9,11,12,13,17 substituted “bloodguiltiness” in NAS
Lev 20:19 - NAS adds “blood relative” (KJV uses kin)

Ahhhhggggghhh, I can’t continue!!!!
It’s pointless!
There is nothing that detracts from the blood of Christ between the KJV, the NKJV or the NAS versions.
Christ is honored in them all.
I’ll be bold enough to venture that it applies to all the modern versions as well but YOU need to search that out.

Rob

 

When I did a search for the word "blood" in the Old Testament of the 1611 KJV at studylight.org, the search stated that it was found in 283 verses.
When I did a search for the word "blood" in the Old Testament of a present-day KJV at studylight.org, the search stated that it was found in 282 verses. I did not look through both sets of verses to try to find where the difference supposedly was.

One possibility might be if the word "blood" is used with another word
in one edition, but the space is removed in the other edition making it a compound word that might not count. Another possibility might be if one of the editions has a printing error in its spelling of one "blood." I do not recall the word "blood" being involved in one of the over 1800 differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV.

 

OK

All these posts Prove that the KJB is "NOT" weak on sin or salvation!:thumbs: :Fish:

 

Hit the nail on the head!

Rob, you have hit the nail right on the head. These lists of omissions or changes mean absolutely NOTHING by themselves without reviewing what has been used instead or what has been a potential addition by a well meaning scribe; some of which may have simply tried to harmonize the books.

What I see is people who will not read another translation besides the KJV so all they will read is a list such as found above. If you don't read another translation, then how can you argue that doctrine has been changed.

I have read other translations and I can say without a shadow of doubt that the translations are true to our beliefs and also very comparible to the KJV. Although, they are updated and much easier to read.

These word lists are simply ridiculous when other words may be used to mean the same thing.

Or when a verse is not found there are always plenty of others that maintain the same doctrine. Doesn't the Bible itself indicate that testimony of Jesus Christ as the Son of God must come from the Holy Spirit? If a translation does not do this, then you have a right to put it down; otherwise, the mainstream translations provide the exact same testimony that the tried and true KJV provide.

Besides, why was the KJV translated and updated from the Bishop's Bible. Why do we find that the KJV has many word changes from the Bishop's, but we also find hundreds of verses that match exactly. Tell me, based on this that you can truly say the KJV was 100% translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic with no consideration to other English translations. Then answer me why those translations needed an MV called the King James Version at the time? If the KJV was all of a sudden the new revelation from God, then I ask for the 1000th time, what was God's 100% accurate Word before 1611? (or before 1769).

If we want to do a word list of missing words I think we will find several books entirely missing from the KJV1769 based on that of the KJV1611. Something called the Apocrypha? Nowhere in my 1611 reprint do I find any evidence that it is not considered scriptural and it is placed right where you would expect scripture to be placed, between the Old and New Testaments. I would think they would have put it in the back as an Appendix which is clearly marked as possibly not being scriptural. What does THIS do to our list?
What does THIS do to weakness of Sin and Salvation?

I propose the new translations are JUST as powerful in this respect. If you don't believe me, then read one of them from front to back, don't just make word comparison lists. Of course, lists will be different, the translations use more modern language.

 

I personally don't know of anybody who would disagree with you. I don't know why people who believe only in the KJV think that the rest of us do not like the KJV? It IS a good translation, but so is my NKJV if I want the textus receptus or the ESV if I want the CT as my main NT text.

 

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV actually also included the Apocrypha, and it still included the marginal notes of the 1611 edition along with some additional ones added in 1762 and in 1769.

It would be the editions of the KJV later printed for the British and Foreign Bible Society and those KJV editions printed by the American Bible Society
that made it more common for KJV editions not to include the Apocrypha.

While present KJV editions may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, there are not every word the same as that edition.

 

Thank you

Thank you LOGOS1560. I did not know this. We learn something every day. This is the reason I enjoy this BB; it gives lay people like myself the opportunity to learn from REAL scholars.:thumbs:

 

In that case, just look at Westcott and Hort, what did they add and take away? We could be here all day naming it. Which versions come from their translation? I think we all know the answer to that one.

By the way, I never said which versions did add or take from the Deity of Christ. It looks like you came to that decision on your own.

Jusy because the oldest available manuscripts were used in some translations, it does not mean that they were the most correct and or the most accurate.

You either have the preserved Word or you don't. If you don't, you have no foundation to stand on, you have nothing to back your faith.

It is amazing, the Non KJV only crowd is the one spending all the time arguing over it then the KJV only crowd. Just look at this chat room, who is speaking against the KJV only, about 98 % of the people.

 

A little confusing there. I'm guessing you meant that only the non-KJVO folk are the ones debating what was added or taken away from God's word?

There's a reason for that. The KJVO folk claim that the KJV is the ONLY complete word of God. Event hough it doesn't match any manuscript 100%. And even though it has gone through several revisions/editions.

So, is the KJV weak on sin and salvation? No more than any other decent bible translation (decent being non-paraphrase, non-cultic).

Which is worse: adding to God's word, or taking away from it? Neither, as both as horrid.

Which is the one and only true word of God? The one you pick up and read and use, period.

 

Really?

So if I pick up a copy of the " New York Times" read it, and use it, does that make it GOD's Word? But if I pick up A KJB (that is as Current as tomorrows paper) I Know that I have the WORD of GOD! But if I pick up a MV I Am not sure of what I have!Since it is not the same as My Bible! I Know about the Bibles before the KJV; but After the AV 1611,raise: I dont really have confidence in them. So I have to be Sure!

 

Actually, you're just guessing, as you have no evidence.

 

KJB! KJB! KJB!:thumbs: KJB! KJB! KJB!:love2: KJB! KJB! KJV! KJB! KJB! KJB!

 

1Sa 15:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheepe
in mine eares, and the lowing of the oxen which I heare?

 

Sure

It matters to me cause they changed the words and God does not change only man changes! does a Leopard loose his spots cause you say so , or the problem with your statement is that it doesn't matter what or whose blood is added or ommited: The thing of the matter is that the blood of Jesus was ommited and where or why is very Important to me cause it's personal!:Fish:

 

Not

Father Abraham listened to the voice of God in a world full of Pagan Idols and false gods; If we would get in tune with God's Word then we would get it settled and become steadfast and unmovable; like a tree planted by the waters I shall not be moved!:Fish:

 

Yeah

Tis this my eares hear the still small voice of God calling,pleading, for me to come home!raying:

 

william s. correa: //The thing of the matter is that the blood of Jesus
was ommited and where or why is very Important
to me cause it's personal!//

Amen, Brother William S. Correa -- Preach it!

Bring on the examples ...

 

I looked this lie up one time. Whoever started this non-sense counted it against the NKJV when the KJV used "blood" while the NKJV used "bloody" and various things like that. If I am not mistaken when the various forms of "blood" were considered, the NKJV actually uses blood 2 more times in the NT than the KJV.

It has been awhile so if you want me to make it definitive then I'll do the search again.

As for "hell", the difference mostly if not completely consists of using "hades" or "sheol" instead.

I haven't looked at repent. However I do know that on several occasions the NKJV shows more reverence for God's immutability by saying He "relented" when the nature of His actions changed rather than saying He "repented"... as if He had something to repent of.

William, Before swallowing non-sense like this and embarassing yourself, you might do well to take E-Sword and check the info out for yourself.