KJO point of view

But the footnotes have always said :"or,young woman,maiden."

The newest of the new is the 2011 NIV. It says :"since I am a virgin."

There is no such implication. Since the birth of Christ was supernatural as all modern versions testify --Joseph was called his "father",there is nothing controversial here. Luke 2:33 in the 2011 NIV :"The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

Because nothing wrong is going on.

You have not pointed out anything to support your cause Winman.

 

Luke 2:33

Did you not know that the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33 is found in several editions of the Textus Receptus and the rendering "father" is found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision?

Several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Thus, it is likely that Erasmus's Greek text had "father" at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that supposedly attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth? Would they imply that the KJV is a revision of earlier Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to show or prove corruption in the claimed other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors and posters in effect claimed that there was corruption in their own good line or stream?

Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the KJV denied the virgin birth and attacked the deity of Christ when it referred to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" at John 1:45 and John 6:42?

 

Some early and impressive witnesses as per NET notes lack the words in verse 38 up through v.39a. It's a textual variant.

 

Tyndale's Bible
Luke 2:33 And his father and mother mervelled at those thinges which were spoke of him.

Wycliffe Bible
Luke 2:33 And his fadir and his modir weren wondrynge on these thingis, that weren seid of hym.


These aren't modern versions.

 

Are KJV-only advocates recommending this making of false accusations against translations of the Bible and their translators while they complain about the posting of accurate, documented evidence?

The evidence has been provided that shows that other English translations present the deity of Christ more clearly and prisely than the KJV in some verses such as 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5.

 

So it is convenient for you to ignore my eight sentences. (BTW,how can one typo be considered "a list"?)

 

So you are left with no point in your crusade.

 

What simple points have you proved to be true in your incorrect accusations against modern translations of the Bible?

The Scriptures do not teach your modern, KJV-only theory.

 

William Tyndale and the KJV

Do you know who William Tyndale was?

William Tyndale is known as the father of our English Bible. Because so much of the KJV comes from Tyndale's Bible, one KJV-only author Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV" (p. 6). KJV-only author William Bradley identified Tyndale as "the principal translator" of the KJB (Purified, p. 51).



KJV-only author David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). Paisley wrote: "The Authorized Version is not a new translation but rather a revision of a great number of English Bibles which went before" (Plea, p. 24). In an appendix in Waite's Defined KJB, S. H. Tow noted that "Tyndale's Bible became the foundation of other Protestant Bibles" (p. 1668).



Even Peter Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them [Tyndale and Wycliffe, or the Geneva Bible]. They have substantially the same
Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman also stated: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1).

 

The KJV used a large majority of Tyndale's bible in their translation.

 

Yes it's obvious, but that doesn't mean they were right. Tyndale is a hero of the faith who literally gave his life so that the scriptures could be read by the common man in English. He was not trying to deceive people. If we follow the logic of the guy in the video then Tyndale was one of Satan's minions trying to corrupt the scriptures, which is completely untrue.

 

Tell me about the "many tests" they performed.

You are unclear. Do you mean translations or Mss? It was not a matter of rejecting certain renderings of existing translations --but a preference of the texts they chose.

Laughably wrong.