Which is inspired AND innerant?

The Greek word that the KJV translators translated into English in Luke 2:22 is autAs, singular feminine, translated "her."

According to Dr. Scrivner, who documented all of Westcott and Hort's departures from the Greek text that underlies the King James Bible, Westcott and Hort changed "her" (autAs) to "their" (autOn) in Luke 2:22. Changes singular feminine to plural masculine.

The Bishop's Bible (1568)
And when the dayes of her purification, after the lawe of Moyses, were accomplished, they brought hym to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord.

The Geneva Bible (1587)
And when the daies of her purification after the Lawe of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord,

The King James Version (Authorized)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Did the Lord use a couple unsaved men, Westcott and Hort , to straighten out the Christians in regards to His preserved words? I think not! God has preserved His words through the use of them by Spirit-filled Christians. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

The KJVO will do or say virtually ANYTHING within the rules of Christian behavior to try and sustain the myth. The KJVO will disagree with any other reading of a particular verse that differs from the KJV reading, regardless of which reading is actually the best reading according to the source being translated. But that's all the "evidence" the KJVO has. He/she simply cannot 'come up' with any other 'proof'.

 

As Bob pointed out, Scrivener here departs from the Majority Text to follow a minority reading. Westcott and Hort have the Majority text reading.

When did God die and leave you in charge of people's salvation?? I must have missed this memo ...

God has used many unsaved men to preserve his word. Many Christians spend a lot of time creating doubt about God's word.

There is actually more reason to doubt the salvation of Erasmus than Westcott and Hort.

 

I found an interesting article written by Thomas Holland concerning Luke 2:22.

Click here>> Beza was not making a conjectural emendation in his Greek text. He was making a textual decision for he had Latin, Greek, and other translations which read "of her."

 

The citation is quite clear: this was "their purifying" the purifying of both mother and child NOT just the purification of the Mother.

The time of purification for the Mother
was 7 days, a day off to circumcise the
child, then 33 more days of purification
for the mother alone. 7+33 = 40, the
numerically correct period for complete
atonement.

The son and the mother had to wait
until the 8th day for the son to be circumcised,
so the "their" is correct, when used in
in the Holy Scripture.

The anser to the title question: both readings
are inspired and inerrant. God is bigger
than the KJVO boogie man.

 

KJVO:kjbo 'proof' is ***poof***

 

An early Vulgate manuscript reads, "...the days of MARY's purification." That is what Jack Moorman found the quotation.

 

When did God die and leave you in charge of people's salvation?? I must have missed this memo ...

God has used many unsaved men to preserve his word. Many Christians spend a lot of time creating doubt about God's word.

There is actually more reason to doubt the salvation of Erasmus than Westcott and Hort. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, so we have a major problem; you are going to have to abandon your KJV theory because many unsaved people were involved in its lineage, not to mention the Anglican translators and many translators of the Bishop's and Geneva Bible's from which the KJV is derived.

Would you care to guess at how many Anglicans were actually saved in the 17th century? Or would you care to guess at how many of the translators of the Bishop's and Geneva were. Was King James a Christian?

How about ALL of the revisors who revised the King James during its many revisions? Do you have documentation they were all saved?

 

Do you KJVO's not know your history, that King James and the Anglicans wanted the Bible to be under British King's Printing Authority law so they could LIMIT who printed the Bible and in the mean time Anglicans were doing what they could to rid the world of evil "baptist leaning doctrine"?

Only to have that law broken by rebels who came to the new world and claimed they were not under British rule. Of course, once independence was established, they continued to print the KJV even against the British copyright authority (which was actually King's Authority--which became copyright law when it evolved).

I still do not know how you justify getting rid of the apocrypha, if you claim that the KJV was the ONLY preserved Word of God.

 

Listen, in whole, it does not matter what Bible you have. If you want the "correct" version, learn Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and a little Aramaic; and presto! you can read the real Bible! That is...if you could find the ORIGINAL documents. But, they are lost. All we have are extremely accurate copies. (Not going there on all the specifics.)

Get a KJV bible, NIV bible, NASB, NLT, The Message, NKJV, etc, etc...

Read all of them, or even better, do the first idea.

I'm just telling the truth here. The message is still the same no matter what version you may have or use.

-CubeX

 

Bro. Jim Ward, I think you're having another attack of the semantics. You really should seek to cure it, altho it doesn't appear to be very contagious, at least on this board.

Cube X, you have the right idea, altho there ARE some bogus versions out there.

 

For once I have to disagree with you RobyCop, but I think you'll see why. I quote "The KJVO will try to do anything within the rules of CHRISTIAN behavior. . ." were you speaking in jest or do I read this correctly. Actually, I'm just playing around here a little.

Do you notice that it is interesting how the KJVO's will use the KJV as the standard (if they think they can get away with it) when they compare an MV? I always think it is quite amusing. Some of the better ones have learned not to do this, but some of the newer or less informed make this mistake quite often. "Well, the KJ says this, and the MV says this, so its got to be wrong."

Actually, the funny part is that USUALLY they are saying the exact same thing, except the King James is misunderstood because of its heavy use of words that have literally changed their meaning since the 18th century.

For example, my father came up and asked me "Well, what did Fred allow?" referring to a friend of mine that had just visited the office. I looked at him a little goofy and said "What did Fred ALLOW?" What er' U talkin' about? I saw the same comparison somewhere in one of these posts using the word "allow" and realized that even since my father's day (he's in his seventies I'm 46) words really do change.

 

Yes, there are robycop3. The KJV people would like to throw ALL MV's into one pile. I don't know about you, but I for one disagree with the idea of the New NIV version if it truly is gender neutral--regardless of what the old manuscripts indicate. If the stories about it are REALLY true, then I have to say that it is a good example of a corrupted translation. (This does not, however, make the NIV a bad translation just because the publishers are the same.) I also think there are problems with the New American Bible (the Catholic translation) among a few others and Cube X, you need to be aware (if you are not) that there is a major difference between a paraphrase and a translation.

The KJVO fanatics would love to point at any MV that is corrupted, to say we who read modern versions are corrupted....it just ain't so.....sorry boys. We MVers do NOT hate the KJV and believe it is God's Word just like the NASB, but we are also aware that corrupted versions can and will be produced. If you stick to a mainstream translation though, at least for now, you should be okay, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, New Holman (whatever its real name--went blank there), etc.

 

I've read SOME of the TNIV, and, seeing it didn't closely follow its sources too closely, I didn't bother to read further. The neutral pronouns were bad enuff, but when I saw Matthew 24:35 read, "Heaven & earth shall pass away, but my SENSE shall not pass away", it was finis for me.

I've NEVER said that all BVs are valid, but I certainly reject the silly notion that in English ONLY THE KJV is valid. It's a man-made false doctrine devoid of any supporting evidence.

 

I haven't read any of the TNIV yet. Thanks for stopping me from wasting my time.

I also love the KJV, just don't like KJVOnlyism.

 

FYI, classes in these are avilable at many Christian colleges (and some municipal junior colleges) for not a lot of money. Anyone can take tese classes. It's worth the investment.

While we don't have the originals, we Do have the documents that the bible translators used, and they're readily available in many bookstores, either off the shelf of via special order.

 

I'm as of yet undecided on the TNIV. Most are bashing the "gender-inclusiveness". While that sounds bad at first, I would need to check it out myself to find out if the concern is warranted.

For example, Luke 2:14 (peace on earth, good will towards men) uses "men" where the contextual reference is "all people", not just male folks. Having this translated to "good will to all people" would be more accurate to the context, and probably truer to the Gospel.

Just a thought. I'm still undecided.