1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Don't cut the baby (DCTB) vs Cut the baby (CTB).

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Alan Gross, Apr 5, 2023.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Faith:
    Baptist
    αυτων. Is the Byzantine Majority Text reading. Tyndale 1534.

    The change to αυτης was not until 1560 Geneva Bible.
     
    #21 37818, Jul 3, 2023
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2023
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,632
    Likes Received:
    461
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Isn't that wonderful!?!

    I used a handful of sources, each of which I qualified in the text, if I thought it needed to be explained that Ruckmanite KJVOnlyism is out to lunch.


    Isn't that article great? Wouldn't it be nice if the Word of God hadn't been hacked to pieces by those not beholden to God?

    This site has 770 verses treated for the effect the omissions and alterations have on Doctrinal Bible teaching, along with the versions and source texts quoted.

    This is a Dean Burgon Society link that is more akin to my beliefs on Bible translation.

    Dr. Bob asks us to identify our brand of KJVONLY we are, despite its potential for even more misunderstanding, at Definitions of KJV Only

    I've had to put posters on 'ignore' who could only insist I worship the KJV, just because I couldn't despise and reject the 'modern versions' and everything that went into their making any more, which began with the Occult and ended with nothing more than OVs, (Occult Versions, i.e., the NIOV, the whatever else 'OV' their is, etc.), in MHO.

    I am a KJVO 2.5, by a modification of Dr. Bob's grading system.

    I will take #2, but only the second part of #3. I can't go with the TR being inerrent, etc., as it says in purple, "verbally identical to the original autographs", etc.

    KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

    "This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today".

    KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

    "This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

    "They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate."

    ... bastardized, adulterated, and edited with neverious intentions

    ...and insufficient for Doctrines and practice, uncertain, and a purely incomplete and fallible "rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience"... 1689 BCF.

    Besides BibleHub.org for Strong's Greek, I used StudyLight.org.
    ...

    Skip the;
    And stick with;
    Just like when you eat fish, you take 'the meet' (solid info and Bible teaching)
    and leave the 'bones' (Ruckmanite-type-ism).
    ...


    Yep and αυτης is in the following;

    The later of which could have certainly been utilized by the KJV translators.

    In other words, it may not be a matter of their highchair tipping over and them bumping their heads.
     
    #22 Alan Gross, Jul 3, 2023
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2023
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    432
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is clear that website displays unrighteous judgments based on use of divers measures or double standards since it does not apply the same exact measures/standards to the KJV.

    The KJV itself omits providing any English rendering for hundreds and thousands of original-language words of Scripture in its underlying original-language texts. The 1611 marginal notes give some examples of these omissions, but those notes do not point out many others. This website fails to list any of those places where the KJV omits words.


    1 Kings 13:6 [1611 margin—“Hebr. the face of the LORD”]

    besought the LORD [1611 KJV]

    appeaseth the face of Jehovah [YLT]

    entreated the face of Jehovah [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

    appeases the face of YHWH [LSV]


    1 Kings 13:33 [1611 margin—“Heb. returned and made”]

    but turned back, and made [1568 Bishops’ Bible]

    but made again [1611 KJV]

    and turneth back, and maketh [YLT]

    but turned again, and made [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

    and turns back, and makes [LSV]


    1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

    by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

    by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]

    by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


    1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

    by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]

    by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]

    by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

    by Elijah [1611 KJV]

    by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


    2 Kings 5:5 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]

    with him [1611 KJV]

    in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


    2 Kings 8:9 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]

    in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]

    with him [1611 KJV]

    in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


    2 Kings 9:36 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

    by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

    by his servant [1611 KJV]

    by the hand of his servant [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

    by the hand of this servant [LSV]


    2 Kings 10:10 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

    by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

    by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV]

    by the hand of His servant Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]
     
    #23 Logos1560, Jul 4, 2023
  4. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The textual information from the website used in this thread is mostly New Testament variants as found in the KJV.
     
    #24 37818, Jul 4, 2023
  5. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    325
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your sources decieve you. As already pointed out
    S Stephens 1550 TEXTUS RECEPTUS reads like the Majority Text and all critical Texts, seeing how it is supported by the Greek. The Textus Receptus here is devided .
     
    #25 Conan, Jul 4, 2023
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    432
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

    Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?


    Luke 15:13

    So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]

    And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

    [Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]


    Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
    The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)


    John 8:6 "as though he heard them not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]


    John 8:42

    Therefore Jesus said [1560 Geneva]

    Jesus said [1611 KJV]

    John 8:59 "going through the midst of them, and so passed by" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]


    John 14:1

    And he said to his disciples [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus]

    [these words found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are omitted in the KJV]


    John 14:6

    and the Truth [1560 Geneva Bible] [Textus Receptus]

    the truth [1611 KJV] [many KJV editions from 1638 Cambridge, including the 1769 Oxford, and until 1800 and even till the 1844 Cambridge had “and the truth”]
     
    #26 Logos1560, Jul 4, 2023
    • Informative Informative x 1
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...