Which KJVO are you?

Sure ya did.

 

You are truly deluding yourself, michelle. Even the translators admitted that the kjVERSION was just that, a VERSION/TRANSLATION. You stating the MV's aren't the Holy Word of God doesn't make it so. You've yet to provide ANY scriptural proof that God said he would preserve the Bible in any one translation. He didn't, therfore the premise for your belief is unfounded.

AVL1984

 

Off subject brother Bob, but I'll answer it anyway.

Passover-Feast of unleavened bread have always been equated in Scripture.

KJV Ezekiel 45:21
In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten

KJV Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Please note Luke was used of God to write The Book of Acts as well.

Acts 12
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter (s/b passover) to bring him forth to the people.

The original language text has "pascha" passover.

Luke wrote "passover-pascha", the KJ men substituted God's passover with "easter" derived from the name of a pagan goddess "ishtar".

HankD

 

Probably.
I was speaking of the three different, unique,
KJVs that i have a copy of on the shelves
around my computer right now.
(I also have an American Bilble Society
edition of 1850 in my Library, but that
belonged to my Maternial Grandmother.
Even in 1850 the American press was not
giving their percentage to the British
Crown) Anyway, the three flavors of the
KJV that i noted are the three most
commonly available and in print RIGHT NOW.

 

If the Alexandrian texts
actually did that, we would hardly have
14,793 posts in this forum. (Not to mention
those posts in the archives)

Praise Jesus!

 

Natters:

Are you saying, that modern translations inaccurately translate the Alexandrian texts as "a young woman" instead of as a "virgin"? There are entire lists of places, where the word blood doesn`t appear in modern versions (although it does in the KJV). That`s without even going into the "Lucifer, son of the morning" and "Morning Star" flap. There are entire verses, that don`t appear in modern versions.

I`ve been in churches, where modern versions are used. I attended a church in the Florida Space Coast area pastored by Adrian Rogers (before he went to Memphis). My two sisters live in Southern California, and one attends Saddleback Church.

When in high school, I discussed with a Jewish classmate the "young woman" vs "virgin" issue. The text used in his Conservative synagogue translated "virgin". He regarded it as no small issue!

Bob

 

BobRogers: ‘Are you saying, that modern translations inaccurately translate the Alexandrian texts as "a young woman" instead of as a "virgin"?’

Not a textual issue, Bob:

Mt 1:23 in *all* texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, Latin Vulgate, etc.) read “virgin” (Gk PARQENOS, Lat. virgo).

Isa 7:14 in the Greek LXX (Alexandrian or any other text) reads PARQENOS = “virgin”

The *only* reason translators rendered it in various ways is because the Hebrew Massoretic text (any edition, Ben Chayyim or Ben Asher) reads `ALMAH (= “young woman of marriageable age”, without stress on a naturally expected virginity) and not BeTHULA (“virgin”, with stress on virginity). The prophecy is *not* negated, regardless of the translation, because the implications of the Hebrew text remain certain.

 

Bob said "Are you saying, that modern translations inaccurately translate the Alexandrian texts as "a young woman" instead of as a "virgin"?"

The only place this has happened is in Isa 7:14, and only in a few translations. Isa is in the Old Testament, and thus is not part of the Alexandrian/Traditional text issue which focuses only on the New Testament. The same Hebrew word is translated "maid" or "damsel" in other places in the KJV. As well, some think that this verse, although applied to Mary in the New Testament, requires an immediate context where "young woman" is acceptable, the idea being a dual-fulfillment: one fulfillment for Ahaz (a young woman), one fulfillment in Mary (a virgin). No modern version I know of denies the viginity of Mary.

Bob said "There are entire lists of places, where the word blood doesn`t appear in modern versions (although it does in the KJV)."

These "entire lists" consist of only Col 1:14, due to purely a textual issue. It is akin to saying the KJV removes Jesus being Lord, simply because of the textual issue in Jude 1:25.

Bob said "That`s without even going into the "Lucifer, son of the morning" and "Morning Star" flap."

If we again went into this flap, I would show you how "morning star" is the superior translation.

Bob said "There are entire verses, that don`t appear in modern versions."

That is true, but the reasons are what's important. It is a completely wrong approach to assume they are "deleted" based solely on familiarity with another version, for one familiar with a modern version could just as easily and logically claim the there are entire verses added to the KJV. It is the manuscript evidence, and not personal familiarity, that should be the means of establishing what is genuine scripture and what is not.

 

Ziggy:

If it`s not a textual issue, the translators of modern versions have incorrectly translated the Alexandrian texts. Either way, the version is in error.

My Conservative Jewish classmate based his statements on what was used in his synagogue and what he was told by his rabbi. I was seated with him at my last class reunion. The Conservative Jewish opinion I have received (I`ve never been in the position to receive an Orthodox opinion) has confirmed the KJV translation of Isaiah.

Bob

 

I'm understandably curious as to whether the TR differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls in regards to the aforementioned verse in Isaiah. Does anyone here who's an expert in the DSS know one way or another?

 

Johnv:

There`ve been some recent revelations about the DSS. They appear to be not as old as previously thought. They noticed an x in the borders of some passages. That was a practice in the early church to mark passages considered prophetic. They noticed changes in some places. A Jewish scribe never made changes in the text! A Jewish scribe made his changes in the borders.

The DSS appear to be more likely from the early Christian era.

Bob

 

these four words seem like you're open to change, perhaps negated by the word, "firmly"
I at one time was a #4...and "evolved" to a strongly Traditional Text Preferred. Therefore I do accept w/ pleasure the NKJV.

 

Johnv: “I'm understandably curious as to whether the TR differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls in regards to the aforementioned verse in Isaiah. Does anyone here who's an expert in the DSS know one way or another?”

I’m not exactly an expert, but I can read English:

From the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (= English Translation of all biblical OT text from the DSS], by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich (Harper SanFrancisco, 1999), p. 281 reflects `ALMAH in the Hebrew text:

“Loo]k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son...”

BobRogers: “If it`s not a textual issue, the translators of modern versions have incorrectly translated the Alexandrian texts. Either way, the version is in error.”

It is a translational issue and not a textual issue. That much is certain. Nor is an “Alexandrian text” any part of the issue, since as I noted, the Greek NT texts and the LXX texts (whether Alexandrian, Byzantine, or anything else) remain unanimous in rendering the term PARQENOS (“virgin”). The issue revolves solely around how to translate the Hebrew text, which also does not differ regardless of edition.

I should note, however, that while the primary text of the Greek LXX has PARQENOS (“virgin”), the other Greek OT versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all read NEANIS (“young girl”).

BobRogers: “My Conservative Jewish classmate based his statements on what was used in his synagogue and what he was told by his rabbi. I was seated with him at my last class reunion. The Conservative Jewish opinion I have received (I`ve never been in the position to receive an Orthodox opinion) has confirmed the KJV translation of Isaiah.”

Just for the record, the official Jewish translations of the TaNaK (Hebrew OT) reads as follows (draw whatever conclusion you may):

JPS Translation 1917, rev. 1955: “Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son....”

New JPS Translation, 1985: “Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son...”

Also for the record, `ALMAH (or in the plural `ALAMOTH) also occurs at
Gen 24:43 (KJV “virgin”),
Ex 2:8 (KJV “maid”);
Ps 68:25 (KJV “damsels”)
Pr 30:19 (KJV “maid”).
SoSol 1:3 (KJV “virgins”)
SoSol 6:8 (KJV “virgins”)

On the other hand, BeTHULAH occurs 50x in the Hebrew text, translated in the KJV “virgin” or “virgins” 38x, “maid” or “maids” 7x; “maiden” or “maidens” 5x.

 

What I know about the DSS is that they appear to have been copied by the Qumran community (aka, the Essenes), as late as 70CE (which is roughly when the Romans whiped out the Qumran settlement), but might be as early as 300BCE.

There are some 500 pieces of literature represented in the DSS. 20% of the pieces are copies of the Hebrew Bible. The remaining 80% are all non-scriptural writings belonging to the Jewish community. The fact that all of the writings are Jewish community writings, and none of them contain any post-messianic writings, negate the notion that the DSS were penned in the post-Qumran Christian era.

Even if we presume that the DSS were penned well past the Qumran era and in the Christian era, they would still predate the MSS and TR considerably. From what I do know, however, the DSS support the texts of the later-penned LXX, which also predates the TR.

However, my question was not regarding the age of the DSS, it was whether or not the DSS supports the TR in regards to the verse in Isaish, referred to earlier in this thread.

 

Very good.

Did you know the original REAL first published
KJV1611 has margine notes (largely distained
by many KJVO#4 and KJVO#5) that sometimes
quote those marginal notations? Not to mention
some of those notes in the Heberew source
are included in the text of the KJV (and
the text of the source is noted in the margine
of the KJV).

I think those beloved translatiors of the
King James Version (KJV) were honest in
documentating what they did in the margin
notes. Contranst this with most KJV1769s
that OMIT the origional Translator margin
notes.

Praise Iesus!

 

Ed:

KJVO #4s and #5s have problems with quite a few factual points.

Bob

 

Bob Rogers
"They noticed an x in the borders of some passages. That was a practice in the early church to mark passages considered prophetic. They noticed changes in some places. A Jewish scribe never made changes in the text! A Jewish scribe made his changes in the borders."
''
Those scrolls have been intensely studied for over half a century and you claim things that would be obvious to experts had not been noticed untill recently?
Sorry, but that doesn't sound very convincing.

 

Mioque:

Have you ever seen the DSS? I`ve been to the museum in Israel. The scrolls are fragments, that have been pieced together since their discovery and catalogued. New information is continually being discovered about the DSS.

Bob

 

"Have you ever seen the DSS?"
''
I have a Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the shelves of the room where I am sitting at the moment. I've been to the Shrine of the Book and have seen some of the originals and I've even apparently met one of the first translators, Joseph Milik.
I was about 8 years old at the time I met him so I wasn't paying attention.
It is not that new discoveries aren't made all the time, it's just that what you describe sounds like very simple basic straightforward stuff, not some hidden clue to be painstakingly discovered.
On top of that I've read some early Christian texts. There are obvious differences in content between early Christian writings and Jewish texts from the same era.