The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

I have shown you that believing that the KJB is perfect,and infallible goes back much farther.

No, you haven't. All you've shown us are a couple of quotes by men who had no other English BV available, and who were referring to God's word.


I have reminded you that ALL "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)from bogus Papal manuscripts conflict one another in THOUSANDS of places..

No; all you've expressed is opinion and guesswork. You haven't proven which mss are bogus nor which ones are "official". You've simply told us which ones you THINK are incorrect.

As for the differences between mss & BVs, the KJV clashes with itself. Did David pay Araunah 50 silver shekels or 600 gold shekels? Did both thieves revile Jesus, or did one of them ask Him to save him?

Look,ALL of 200+ Laodacean "bibles" and the Protestant Bibles cannot be God's word:"HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWPINIONS?"

1. HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you proven even ONE ms wrong?

2. It appears you're stuck in another false doctrine-that silly SDA invention of "church ages". I believe you're smart enough to know all the churches to whom Jesus had John send letters existed simultaneously, and that all 7 types of those churches exist today. That "church age" doctrine is a pure LIE, and you need to drop it like a hot potato before it burns you. But then I'm not surprised that a person stuck in one false doctrine(Onlyism) becomes stuck in another one.


And I have posted scripture PROVING that God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him;

How silly and completely of the subject this is. Please post JUST ONE SCRIPTURE in support of KJVO.


God will not bless the new "bibles"! How do I know that? Because He has not YET.

Now you're growing desperate, as by that above criterion you posted, you don't believe Jesus will return because He hasn't YET. However, I KNOW you believe He WILL return, same as I do, because HE SAID SO. Therefore, you're applying the great KJVO double standard here; you're also assuming that because something hasn't happened YET, that it never will.


You have done no such thing.People have been trying that baloney for years,nothing positive yet.

OK, show us an ancient Greek ms that has the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4. Also, please address some of the booboos brought up by others on this board.


Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Not one word about Onlyism...


Again,you have brought nothing profitable to the table;just APING the opinion,and rhetoric of others that is as vile today as the day it was founded.....

I don't see one word disproving anything we nonOnlyists have said. Not one word...

 

Thats a lie;there was other English translations available that were from Papal manuscripts.

The problem is NOT with God's word(KJB),the problem is with it's critics..

We'll see;2nd Corinthians 5:10 is a comin'. I'm ready!!!!!

Oh,I see.So now God bearing witness to the things of God is "silly" now eh? Problem is,you cannot prove that wrong.....

I DID!!!!!!!! "KJVO" was conjured up by Bible Agnostics who want to place SCHOLARSHIP and THEMSELVES above "thus sayeth the Lord."

After 200+ conflicting "bibles" and 123 years it has not happened;and never will!!!

Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???

Done told ya,it is about Spiritual dicernment;not a man made smoke-screen(KJVO) to hide Bible Agnostics..


I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical..

I patiently await you answer.....

 

Anti-Alexandrian: "Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as
He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???"

DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!!
If it is added to a a non-KJV, then Jeremiah 36:32 applies.
If it is added to a KJV, then Revelation 22:18-19 applies.

Happy New Year anyway!!

While we are double standarding, ponder this:

Anti-Alexandrian: "I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical.. "

I challenge Anti-Alexandrian to give
ONE VERSE (from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) or combination of verses
that says or shows that Anti-Alexandrian
exists. Since one cannot, i shall henseforth
consider Anti-Alexandrian as NOT existing.
/ed flipps through his AMPLIFIED BIBLE
looking for verses that tell about
seperation and shunnin' /

 

Though it is an excellent 17th C. English translation, the KJV is demonstrably *not* "perfect" (in the sense of "being complete, flawless, and incapable of being improved.") Two illustrations will suffice.

(1) The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle σχιζομενους -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."

(2) The KJV lacks material which is clearly present in the original language texts. Example: Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic psalm (i.e., the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on). This acrostic feature is not preserved in the KJV even though the translators demonstrated elsewhere that they knew how to do it (see the acrostic Psalm 119). Since the KJV is capable of being improved by structuring Psa. 37 in such a way as to preserve its acrostic feature, it is not "perfect."

 

THANK YOU A-A,

You just solidified my belief that to be a strong KJVO person is wrong in the sight of God.

God never uses double standards. He is always fair and just. I came to this board a few months ago looking for some answers... and boy did you give them to me. I have read (as you put it) a lot of baloney, but the answers that SOME KJVO people give takes the cake. There are a lot on this board that are KJVO and I really respect their opinion, because they try to show it with grace and honor. I was like that 2 yrs ago, but God opened my eyes and chastised me for making a version my God. He also let me know (through study, and fellow Christians) that condeming versions of the Bible is dangerous as they are God's Word.

AA I pray for you that your eyes will be opened (I'm not saying you're not saved, because I truly believe you are, but...)so you won't have to endure the same chastisement from God I had to.

God's message will stand the test of time, And will never pass away. But that doesn't mean that a particular version is perfect. Anytime you translate from one language to another something is lost.

Just think, if it hadn't been for "know it alls" at the tower of Babel, we would never have this problem. Don't accuse God for all the confusion of languages, Don't even give Satan credit, Give the credit where it is deserved...Our human pride.

Your Brother in Christ, Tim

 

Yes, some people got saved after they read their modern versions, however their modern versions will not make them "mature" Christians.

At TTU and Liberty University, for example, some Christians and professors used their modern versions. They have "compromising" Christian professors who disliked the doctrine of separation. The Bible requires the doctrine of the separation. Are they sure that they are mature Christians?

Some homosexuals preferred the NIV more than any modern versions including the KJV. Are they sure that they are saved WITHOUT their repentance of sins - homosexual practice?

The Bible requires the faith and the repentance at the same time.

 

Thats a lie;there was other English translations available that were from Papal manuscripts.

There was no other English translation in widespread use from C. 1644 till the 1880s. That's indisputable history. Look in any good encyclopedia.


Did David pay Araunah 50 silver shekels or 600 gold shekels? Did both thieves revile Jesus, or did one of them ask Him to save him?
The problem is NOT with God's word(KJB),the problem is with it's critics..

Then why don't you simply answer the question?


It appears you're stuck in another false doctrine-that silly SDA invention of "church ages". We'll see;2nd Corinthians 5:10 is a comin'. I'm ready!!!!!

First-the false "Church Age" doctrine is an invention of the false prophet William Marrion Branham.(1909-1965)It has been adopted by many of the Oneness pentecostals and some of the SDAs.

Second-Whe 2 Cor.5:10 comes to pass for you, what will you do if Jesus asks you, "Why did you fight against some versions of My word? Can I not present it any way I choose?"


How silly and completely of the subject this is.
Oh,I see.So now God bearing witness to the things of God is "silly" now eh? Problem is,you cannot prove that wrong.....

Wanna prove me wrong? Then simply provide ONE SCRIPTURE where God bears witness to KJVO. Shouldn't be too hard...


Please post JUST ONE SCRIPTURE in support of KJVO. I DID!!!!!!!! "KJVO" was conjured up by Bible Agnostics who want to place SCHOLARSHIP and THEMSELVES above "thus sayeth the Lord."

Yup! describes KJVO to a "T"...


you're also assuming that because something hasn't happened YET, that it never will.
After 200+ conflicting "bibles" and 123 years it has not happened;and never will!!!

Proof, please?


OK, show us an ancient Greek ms that has the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4. Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???

Just answer the question, please. And if you can't find any manuscript proof, please show us by what authority the AV translators added those words.


Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Not one word about Onlyism...


Done told ya,it is about Spiritual dicernment;not a man made smoke-screen(KJVO) to hide Bible Agnostics..

Right. KJVO is a false, man-made doctrine. If you'd rather go with the invention of men, rather than the plain historical proof of what GOD has done concerning His word, be my guest...


I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical..

I patiently await you answer.....

Answer my questions first. And while you're busy inventing some answers, mull this over...we've PROVEN the man-made origin of modern Onlyism, linking it to Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" and to the authors who followed him, mostly copying his material while inventing some of their own. There can be no denying that KJVO is man-made. Please try to prove it's of GOD.

 

I KNEW you would "skank" out on that one;I did answer your questions,I cannot help if you lack the discernment to see that.

 

Was he saved?

 

The *vast* majority of English Bible translations (including the majority of pre-1611 English translations) do not add "the image of" to Rom. 11:4.

"...that have not bowed their knees before Baal." (Wycliffe, 1388)

"...which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Tyndale, 1534)

"...which have not bowed the knee to Baal" (corrected Geneva, 1599)

If a handful of other versions share the same inferior translation as the KJV, that doesn't make the KJV's translation a good one.

In the Greek LXX, there is no difference in meaning between "Baal" with the masculine article and "Baal" with the feminine article. They are interchangeable, and mean exactly the same thing -- "Baal," nothing more, nothing less. The following pairs of verses are instructive:

(1) "the high places"

KJV Numbers 22:41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine), that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.

KJV Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places *of Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind

(2) "the altar"

KJV Judges 6:25 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine) that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it:

KJV 2 Kings 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars *for Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

(3) "burning incense"

KJV 2 Kings 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

KJV Jeremiah 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense *unto Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and walk after other gods whom ye know not

It's evident from these passages that "Baal" with either the masculine or feminine article means "Baal," not "the image of Baal." This is also the case for the following pair of verses:

(4) "bowing the knee"

KJV 1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

KJV Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee *to [the image of] Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine).

Conclusion: the KJV has added to the word of God by adding "the image of" to Rom. 11:4.

The Greek phrase in Ac. 19:35 poses a challenge for English translators -- και του δεοπετους, which literally means "and of that which fell from Zeus," an obscure expression possibly referring to a meteorite fragment that was taken and turned into an image of Artemis. By contrast, the Greek of Rom. 11:4 is simple and crystal-clear -- "bowed the knee to Baal," and nothing more.

 

Again, the fact that some other English versions share the KJV's inferior translation doesn't make it any less an inferior translation.

The force of the word in Mark has nothing to do with what appears in Matthew and Luke and everything to do with what appears *in Mark* and with the plain meaning of the Greek word. Mark's Gospel deliberately uses the stong verb σχιζω which carries the sense of something being forcefully divided into two (look it up an any Greek lexicon). It's the same verb used in Mk. 15:38 to describe the tearing of the Temple veil at the moment of Jesus' death. These two occasions -- once at the beginning and once at the end -- are the *only* times in Mark's Gospel where this verb is used, and they "bracket" the Gospel to show how Jesus Christ our Mediator tears away barriers and grants us access to God. Mark 1:10 is also the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy in Isa. 64:1, "Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down..." Some English Bible translations like the Geneva and the NIV correctly render the forceful nature of the Greek verb and preserve the cross-references, while others like the KJV completely miss it in their inferior translation.

BTW, I notice you didn't comment on the KJV's failure to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37, even though it correctly preserved the acrostic feature of Psa. 119.

 

I KNEW you would "skank" out on that one;I did answer your questions,I cannot help if you lack the discernment to see that. </font>[/QUOTE]No you didn't; you merely posted the same ole 70-yr-old Onlyist party line that was torpedoed years ago. You have NOT addressed the questions of total lack of Scriptural support of KJVO, and the differences between all English BVs in the face of God's promise to preserve His word. You have NOT addressed the fact that JESUS HIMSELF and His apostles used another version of the OT besides the one translated into today's Bibles.

Since this thread is about some Old Latin mss, perhaps you'd like to discuss this elsewhere, but the reality is that the results will be the same-the Onlyist simply will NOT answer a question directly.

 

Please remember that the issue here is your earlier claim that one particular version, the KJV, is "perfect" (i.e., "complete, incapable of being improved.") The fact that the KJV fails to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37 is one of many specific instances where the KJV is demonstrably incomplete and could be improved. Therfore, your claim about the "perfection" of the KJV is demonstrably false. It's that simple.