Hebrews 10:23

Confession is good for the soul, and here we have it, right from the horse's mouth, Counterfeit Precepts has confessed that he's a full blown Ruckamnite. Mr Precepts almost infinite inconsistencies bear out in the laughable statement that the KJV;kjb is Inerrant, Infallible, and Inspired (the heresy of advanced revelation:Rev 22:18-19) It's been demonstrated countless times that the 1611 differs from the 1769 many times over, and he minimizes the differences. If it only differs ONE TIME; *poof* the myth is evident. So, Pre, where exactly did the "jots" and "tittles" of the 1611 go when the 1769 came about? *poof*...your theory breaks down here. BE CONSISTENT.
The 2d statement is so funny I almost blew a gasket laughing out loud! Get back to the KJV1611:kjb? Again, again, again,**yawn** what would Christians do before 1611? The very same place that believers went in 1610, we can go to today! Do you get it yet? or are you going to keep holding the pickle?

 

Then you have a counterfeit. </font>[/QUOTE]But how do you know what a counterfeit is unless you go to the very same source from where the AV translators went to? The T.R. always translates this word elpis as hope, except this one place. Someone has said that the AV translators were interpreters and not prophets...therefore, as human, they're culpable to make honest mistakes. If one believes the KJV corrects the Greek, as you seem to do, then you believe in advanced revelation. (Ruckman heresy). </font>[/QUOTE]I believe God finished his perfect word in the King James Bible, therefore, I don't need to go back to the (so-called) originals to try and prove it. I believe it by faith.

 

Homebound:{i]I believe God finished his perfect word in the King James Bible,[/i]

I thought He finished His words to all mankind with John on Patmos.


therefore, I don't need to go back to the (so-called) originals to try and prove it. I believe it by faith.

Faith in WHOM, or WHAT?

I know you have faith in God; that's above question. But to believe a fishing story such as KJVO, one must have an additional faith in something or someone. Is it the AV translators? Is it a KJVO author or authors such as Riplinger, Gipp, or Waite?

There's simply no Scriptural support for the KJVO myth found in the KJV itself, or in any other valid BV. This fact alone renders KJVOism into a myth.

Hey, don't kick yourself for being deceived. I believe we've ALL been deceived one time or another. I myself was led astray for awhile by Armstrongism, and the KJVO authors seem much more reliable than Herb Armstrong ever did. Please take the time to check out the SUBSTANCE of their assertions for veracity.

 

Hey Precepts, Michelle, and Homebound, I notice you are ignoring the fact that there is a KJB that has "hope" instead of "faith" in the passage. What think ye?

Should we through thee olde KJB1873 out the window. After all if it is wrong there maybe it is wrong other places.

So which is right the KJB1769
or the KJB1873?

Remember if one has a mistake in it, it can't be perfect.

 

Will Kinney:{i]Since you have no infallible Bible and I do, I will trust what God gave us in the Holy Bible (also known as the King James Bible).[/i]

Please prove God did NOT give us any other BV in English. Making comparisons between versions & saying, "This aint the KJV so it's wrong" won't do.

 

We're not ignoring what you try to call a fact, but the fact it is not really a KJB is the fact we hold to. My faith is in God Who preserved His Word to the English speaking people in the AV 1611 KJB, He is Faithful and True.

Yall persist in your rant that the KJB translators were some kind of dufous ignoramus's that had no ability to translate accurately the thoughts and intents of Scripture in your attempts to belittle the Word of God, I will not humour you in this attack on God's Word any longer. If you actually had something to prove as fact you would not persist in attacking the Bible, it's translators, or those who hold the standard of preservation of God's Word.

 

He did give other Bible versions in English. I just ordered a 1599 Geneva. Unless, you are one of those that don't think its a "real" Bible. i.e. Ripplinger said its only provisional. And yet she has not proved it contains a single error.

 

And yet the Geneva is accurate, but not complete. Why is it mv proponents cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth? Why? Bias.

 

Please list the areas where the Geneva bible is "incomplete."

Why is it KJVO proponents cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth? Why? Bias.

 

***yawn*** Precepts persist in his rant promoting to inspired prophets the KJV;kjb translators, as if they have equal footing or even BETTER inspration of the writter of Hebrews, i.e. elpis is not faith.He attempts to belittle the Word of God in the language He chose and correct it with the language Precepts speaks....as far as humoring us...please, I beg thee, to keep posting about your N.P.V.S., I for one love the laughs you provide in defending your demonstratable myth. "If you actually had something to prove".. In your 1,500 plus posts, the only thing you have proven is the extent one will go to hold on to a myth. ..."attacking the Bible" thou art wrong yet again! the only thang we're attacking is your clinging to the Pickle, aka Ruckmanite heresy. Who's attacking the translators? we're pointing out to you that the were not KJVO;kjbo time and time again, and that they were not prophets, but interpreters.

 

Hi Larry, two primary things in regard to your post. First, you keep mentioning the lexicons and how to only meaning of elpis and elpizo is "to hope".

I gave documented information to the contrary. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again.


The Profession of Our Faith - Hebrews 10:23

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our FAITH without wavering

In support of the KJB reading of elpis as being translated as FAITH, the following should be considered.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 1968 on page 537 lists one of the meanings of elpis as "Reason to expect or Believe". The same is true of Kittle's massive work which shows that elpis shades over into being synonymous with Faith. "Hope as expectation of good is closely linked with trust. This hope is thus trust." "It consists rather in general confidence in God's protection and help." page 522.

The verb form of this noun is elpizo and even the NASB and NIV have at times translated this word as to Trust. The KJB translates this verb as to Trust 18 times as well as to hope. If you trust something or someone, you believe them. It is really "gnat straining" to suggest that we are talking about the noun here and not the verb, when the very verb from which this noun comes is also translated as "to trust" in all the modern Bibles as well. In fact, Liddell and Scott's Abridged Lexicon Seventeenth Edition 1887 on page 217 lists the meanings of this verb elpizo as: "to hope, expect, think, BELIEVE."

The King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as FAITH in Hebrews 10:23. In 1755 John Wesley made his own New Testament translation, and he changed thousands of words from the King James readings, but in Hebrews 10:23 Mr. Wesley went with "the profession of our faith". The Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, nine years before the KJB, also translated this passage in the same way as the KJB. "la professión de nuestra FE (faith). So does the more recent Spanish Valera Neuvo Testamento of 1858.

Though Adam Clarke does not agree with the KJB reading, he notes in his commentary on this passage that the Old Latin (Itala), Erpen's Arabic and the ancient Ethiopic versions also read "the profession of our Faith".

Other English versions that have translated this word as Faith in Hebrews 10:23 are Noah Webster's 1833 translation. Noah Webster knew some 15 different languages including Hebrew and Greek and he made his own translation of the Bible in 1833. He changed the wording of the KJB in many places, but he left the word Faith here in Hebrews 10:23.

In addition to this, we also have the more modern translations of the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible and both of these also have elpis as Faith in Hebrews 10:23.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, when I said you have no infallible Bible you responded that this is an out an out lie on my part.

OK, Larry, prove me wrong and tell us all exactly what your infallible Bible is. Give it a name, please. Is it the NASB? If it is not any translation, then please tell us exactly which Hebrew and which Greek text is your infallible bible.

I will bet there is no specific Hebrew or specific Greek text which you really believe is the preserved, infallible, complete words of God, but rather your own peculiar, personal, mystical version that exist only in your own mind. Prove me wrong.

Will Kinney

 

Skanwmatos posts: "Originally posted by Precepts:
And yet the Geneva is accurate, but not complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please list the areas where the Geneva bible is "incomplete."
Why is it KJVO proponents cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth? Why? Bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Skan, First of all, I admit freely and openly that I definitely am biased. No doubt about it. I am biased in my firm belief that God has preserved His inerrant, complete words in the King James Holy Bible.

Your side is also biased in that you all do not believe there are any specific texts or any specific translation that is the inerrant, complete, unchangeable words of God on this earth.

As for the Geneva bible, which was a good one but which God obviously has put on the shelf, there are many areas where it falls short of perfection.

I will give just a couple examples. In John 21:5 the Lord Jesus asks his disciples: "Children (paidia) have ye any meat?"

The Geneva wrongly translates this as "Sirs, have ye any meat?" The word is not "sirs" but "children".

For a second example, the Geneva creates a contradiction by following the wrong Greek text in Matthew 10 about the staves. The Geneva has the singular staff.

Did Jesus tell His disciples to take a staff or not?

Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8, and Luke 9:3

In the King James Holy Bible we read the following:

Matthew 10:9-10

"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither TWO coats, neither shoes, nor yet STAVES: for the workman is worthy of his hire."

In Matthew 10:10 the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV read: "Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals NOR A STAFF, for the laborer is deserves his food." (ESV).

The singular word "staff" comes from Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D.

Mark 6:8

KJB - "And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save A STAFF ONLY; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse."

So read all texts, and the NASB, ESV, NIV also make mention of taking a staff only.

Luke 9:3

KJB - "And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither STAVES, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."

Again STAVES (plural) is the Majority reading and Alexandrinus, but again Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the singular "staff", and so the NASB, NIV, ESV read: " Take nothing for your journey, neither A STAFF, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money, and do not have even two tunics apiece." (NASB)

By way of example here, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus continually disagree with each other and so do the versions based on them. Here in Luke 9:1-3 the KJB and the Majority of all texts read: "Then he called HIS twelve DISCIPLES...and he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal THE SICK...neither have two coats APIECE."

In just these three verses, Vaticanus omits "his disciples" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, but Sinaiticus reads "his twelve APOSTLES", contrary to the others. None of the versions follow the Sinaiticus reading here.

"and to heal THE SICK" is found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, and so read the previous Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the NIV; but because Vaticanus omits the words "the sick" the NASB, RSV, and ESV have again changed and chosen to now omit these words.

Then in verse three we read "neither have two coats APIECE", which is in the Majority of texts, including A and D, and the NASB includes it, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit this word and so do the NIV, ESV. This is modern scholarship in action.

Anyway, the result of the Westcott-Hort texts which use the singular "staff" in all three gospels have the Lord telling His disciples not to take a staff in Matthew and Luke, and then in Mark He tells them to take a staff, has created a contradiction. And this contradiction has not gone unnoticed by the atheistic, Islamic, and Bible debunker sites.

An Islamic site lists this example as one of their alleged contradictions. They introduce the subject with these words: "There are contradictions in the Gospel accounts and such contradictions also prove that the Gospels do not constitute a revelation of God or that human interference has changed the original revelation out of recognition. Any ordinary author possessing an ordinary measure of consistency will not allow contradiction in what he writes. How then can we tolerate contradiction in a ‘Book of God’?  We give some examples here:"

Then the Islamic site goes on to mention the apparent contradiction of Jesus telling his disciples not to take a staff in Matthew and Luke and in Mark telling them to take a staff.

What is pathetic to see is how some Christian sites who use the versions based on Westcott-Hort try to defend this contradiction. This article comes from a Christian site called Apologetics.

http://www.worthynews.com/apologetics/101-36-40.htm

Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning whether Jesus allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation. (My note: It is NOT one of translation, but one of which text is correct and which is wrong.)

In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word which is rendered in the King James (Authorized) translation as "Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet staves". According to a Greek dictionary this word means "to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise" (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Jesus is saying "Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you are."

Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, ("take"); but then, like Matthew adds "no staff, no bag, no bread, no money". But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not necessarily involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Jesus.

However, this is not a definitive answer, only a possible explanation. This trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were, or is, a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is taught about the Qur'an. And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical contradictions when the Bible is said to be "full of contradictions" and "totally corrupted", then such people are obviously deluded. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this "contradiction" would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted."

My comments: Did you hear what this "defender of the faith" just said? "We would not be troubled is this is a contradiction...it is a sign of the text AS A HUMAN ACCOUNT of what took place, and a clear sign it has not been deliberately corrupted."!!??!! So much for our friends as Christian Apologetics.

Now, for a look at another Christian site's explanation. This Big Time Baloney set in classic scholarspeak comes from a site that calls itself The Christian Think Tank. Unfortunately there is far more "tanking" than "thinking" at this site. You will notice the "Think Tank" site uses one of the modern versions which has the corrupted text. Rather than admitting that his Westcott-Hort Sinaiticus/Vaticanus text is wrong, he goes into a lengthly circumlocution of pedantic proportions worthy of the best trained Jesuit priest.

Here is the question and the "scholarly response". You can see the whole thing at http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html

Notice how the "Christian apologist" resorts to a totally humanistic and naturalistic perspective. I have edited many portions because he goes on and on with his "scholarspeak". It is even worse in the full explanation which you can see if you wish at the site. He even says that the same word meant something to Luke that it didn't mean to Mark.

The Christian Think Tank begins this way, and all the capital lettered words are his:

...Well, did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? Another contradiction?!

Hi, glen--I don't know how tough a question this is, but would appreciate your input. Regarding the sending out of the 12, could they take a staff (Mark 6:8), or not (Matt. 10:10; Luke 9:1-6)? The few commentaries that I have checked have been less than helpful.

This was a GREAT question because it highlights one of the MAIN sources of 'mistaken contradictions'--morphological similarity. What this means is that when two authors use the SAME word-form, somebody decides that the two different authors meant the SAME word-meaning. Let's look at the passages in question:

* Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take ("ktaomai") no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. (Matthew 10.9-10)

* These were his instructions: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey except a staff -- no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. (Mark 6.8) * He told them: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey -- no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9.3)

At the surface, the 'contradiction' seems obvious: Matthew and Luke SEEM to agree that Jesus prohibits the disciples from taking a staff, while Mark SEEMS to allow them to take one...At first blush--assuming all the 'takes' mean the same thing(!)--SOMEBODY must be wrong! So, we have two sets of contradictions here: Matthew vs. Mark (different word forms for 'take'), and Luke vs. Mark (same word forms for 'take'). So, let's try to determine what those word-forms mean for the authors:

* Matthew uses the word 'ktaomai', meaning 'acquire' (a logistics function). * Luke seems to be dependent on Matthew here--as evidenced by the grammatical construction, and seems to have used a broader word ('airo') for Matthew's tighter 'acquire' ('ktaomai'). Luke is very similar to Matthew--the verbs in both passages are imperatives (vs. Mark's use of a subordinate construction and subjunctive mood). But Luke CANNOT use Matthew's verb (ktaomai) in this passage, because 'ktaomai' means something DIFFERENT for Luke (and presumably his readers). Ktaomai in Luke is focused more on "PURCHASED/Financially OWNED things".

What this means is that Luke HAD TO find ANOTHER, DIFFERENT word that could convey 'locate and acquire' OTHER THAN Matthew's word ktaomai. Luke selects 'airo', a more general term.

* And just as 'ktaomai' did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew; so also the word 'airo' DID NOT (often) MEAN the same for Luke and Mark! (which dissipates the contradiction).

That Luke probably did NOT mean the same sense of 'airo' as Mark did (removing the problem) is suggested by a similar issue in Luke 10.4. In that passage--the sending of the 70--Luke uses the verb "bastazo" (which has a narrower range than airo) which for Luke means 'bear, carry' [== the same sense as Mark's 'airo'].

Although the word airo is used by both Luke and Mark in these passages, in the Triple Tradition it is often understood that the gospel writers did not have as much flexibility in redactional word-choice-changes as they might have had in other sections. So, similarities in word choices in the TT would not indicate shared semantic 'preferences' but in shared source-stock of the accounts.

* So, can Luke's airo be used in the sense of Matthew's ktaomai (='acquire')? If it can, then the issue is resolved, since we know that Mark's airo is NOT the same as Matthew's ktaomai, and that Mark's airo is closer to Luke's bastazo that to Luke's airo. So, the last piece of the puzzle is why Luke used airo in 9.3. We know why he didn't use ktaomai (it would have mislead his readers) and we know why he didn't use bastzao (because Matt and hence Luke, was not talking about Picking up and CARRYING luggage--an immediate act, but about LOCATING/ACQUIRING/SECURING something--taking a longer period of time to do, delaying the mission).

So, where this seems to net out: 1. In Matthew, Jesus tells them to not 'make preparations'--the trip is too urgent to 'acquire belongings for the trip' (cf. Luke 17.31). No hesitation--start NOW with what you already have at your disposal!

2. In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!

3. In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form. So Matthew's ktaomai equals Luke's airo (in this and in other passages), and Mark's airo equals Luke's bastazo (in this and other passages).

Notice also the general principle that we must ALWAYS ask what an author meant by a word, and not simply what OTHER authors' meant by it. Audiences and Authors differ, and with the significant semantic ranges of common-use words, we must always do this level of consideration to be as honest as possible with text.

So, the morphological similarity of the words, in this case, would have misled interpreters if they did not pay attention to the usage patterns of the authors. As it stands, there is no disagreement between the accounts--in fact, they strangely appear to be saying the say exact thing--"Hurry up and get moving!".

Hope this helps, glenn miller ----------------------------------------------end of Think Tank article.

In contrast to this mind-numbing babble of the modern version defenders, let's look at some very simple explanations offered by saints of old who referred to the true reading as found in the King James Holy Bible.

Adam Clarke says in his commentary on Matthew 10:10: "all the following manuscripts and versions have STAVES: C, E, F, G, K, L, M, P, S, ninety-three others, Coptic, Armenian, latter Syriac, one of the Itala, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. This reading is of great importance, as it reconciles this place with Luke 9:3, and removes the seeming contradiction from Mark 6:8; as if he had said: "Ye shall take nothing to defend yourselves with, because ye are the servants of the Lord, and are to be supported by his bounty, and defended by his power."

John Gill remarks on these passages: "And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,.... To accommodate them in it, except those things after directed to: save a staff only; a single one, for staves in the plural number are forbidden. Matthew 10:10 does not forbid the taking of shoes, but two pair of shoes; as not two coats, nor two staves, but one of a sort only, that is, with more than one staff, which was sufficient to assist them, and lean upon in journeying: for, according to Mark, one was allowed; as though they might take a travelling staff, yet not staves for defence, or to fight with."

B.W. Johnson's People's New Testament Commentary: "Save a staff only. Only the staff that each had already. Matthew forbids a supply for future use. With the staff each one had, but without an extra supply. A staff was always carried in walking over the rugged mountains of Palestine."

Matthew Henry comments: "In Matthew and Luke they are forbidden to take staves with them, that is, fighting staves; but here in Mark they are bid to take nothing save a staff only, that is, a walking staff, such as pilgrims carried."

The word used for a staff in Greek is rabdos and it can have several meanings and uses. It can mean a staff, a walking stick, a twig, a rod with which one is beaten, or a branch. It can also mean a sceptre held by a king.

The Bible itself should serve as our dictionary. A simple staff may be used for walking on a journey. In Genesis 32:10 Jacob says to God: "for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands."

Zechariah 8:4 "There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age."

A staff could also serve in battle. Isaiah 10:5-6 "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge...to tread them down like the mire in the streets."

Notice the use of the plural "staves" when David goes against Goliath in battle as recorded in 1 Samuel 17:43 where Goliath says to David: "And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with STAVES? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods."

The simple fact is that the King James Bible is one of the very few Bibles that is right where the Lord tells his disciples not to take staves (plural) in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, but tells them to take a staff (singular) in Mark 6:8. These are the Majority readings of all Greek texts and are also found in the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Green's interlinear, and the Third Millenium Bible. All other versions I checked, including those that preceeded the King James Bible, have it wrong in Matthew 10:10 and create a real and not just an apparent contradiction.

Will Kinney

 

Completely false.

The problem with your theory is that those addressed were not little children (the meaning of the Greek term), but grown men. The Greek term "paidia" is a term of endearment much like calling a grown man "son" or a non-relative "brother." The Geneva simply applies the common term of endearment used in the 1550s, "sirs" in place of the other, less common at that time, term "children."

Uh, what's the difference? How many staffs can one person use? Oh, and just a question, what Greek manuscript reads "pabdous" vice "pabdon?" My understanding is that the TR, which you champion, reads "pabdon" the same as Aleph and B.

&lt;much off topic speaking snipped&gt;

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Will,

Thank you so much for that post. Indeed it was very long, but very well worth reading. Thank you so much for all your hard work! You also brought up a point, that I never realized until you mentioned it, how these versions are not only affecting confusion amongst the believers, but the unbelievers also. Thanks for making that evident.


Skanw,

Children seems to be the best and most accurate translation. The tribes of Israel were often called the children of Israel. This includes all men, woman, and children under the term "children" of Israel. Why? Because the understanding is that they were reliant upon God as a child is upon their parents. Sirs, doesn't quite depict this meaning as relying upon God, but the opposite of that which would be self-sufficient.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ok, Will, what is your take on the fact that my KJB has "hope" and not "faith" in Hebrews 10:23?

Precepts seems to allude that I don't have a true KJV.
OK, Precepts, do you really think we believe you take an actual 1611 into the pulpit to preach?
We may be getting someplace.
Can we mark the 1873KJB as a MV?
If so Is the 1769, a MV?
What constitutes a MV?
one that you disagree with?

Out of the three which one is the real KJV?
1611
1769
1873

Be careful when you answer.
If you hold to 1611 as precepts imagines he does. Then the 1873 agrees with more of it than does the 1769.

So if you throw out the 1873 because it doesn't agree with the 1611 then you better throw out the 1769.

If so we had better offer a reading class.

 

I have four of them. One is a photographic reprint of the first edition, first printing of the edition of 1611. And I have taken it to the pulpit to preach from.

Simple, all of them.

 

I agree skan
but precepts is telling me since mine says hope and not faith that it is not a real bible.
I do believe the 1873 is more accurate.
That's why i use it. But all are great translations.

 

Hi Michelle, thanks for your comments. And, Yes, the world out there is laughing at our so called inerrant Bible. They are beginning to catch on to the fact that our "bibles" differ radically from each other in hundreds of places. These are the type of things being pointed out at many atheistic and Islamic sites, as well as by "former Christians".

Skanwmatos, you asked: " Oh, and just a question, what Greek manuscript reads "pabdous" vice "pabdon?" My understanding is that the TR, which you champion, reads "pabdon" the same as Aleph and B. "

The plural "staves" is found in the Trinitarian Bible Society copy of the TR as well as Green's Greek interlinear of the TR used by the KJB translators.

The plural is also found in the majority of all texts as well as C. The fact that the KJB translatos were led by God to adopt this reading and clear up a contradiction found in the NASB, NIV, ESV, is just another indication of God's guiding hand on this translation.

The NKJV also has it right here.

The versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Geneva, Tyndale show, at least at this verse, that they are not the perfect word of God.

Will K

 

The problem being, of course, that Scrivener's TR (used by Green) and the Trinitarian Bible Society TR did not exist until 1894. The TR the KJV is based on reads in the singular. (See Stephens 1551 TR.)

Uh, well, not so! The plural only appears in a few of the K family and not in the Majority. And "C" as I am sure you are aware is Alexandrian. So I guess you now champion the Alexandrian text?

 

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The plural "staves" is found in the Trinitarian Bible Society copy of the TR as well as Green's Greek interlinear of the TR used by the KJB translators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem being, of course, that Scrivener's TR (used by Green) and the Trinitarian Bible Society TR did not exist until 1894. The TR the KJV is based on reads in the singular. (See Stephens 1551 TR.)

Hi Skan, The KJB translators used a variety of materials and texts, not just Erasmus or Stephanus. They also used Beza and they had other Greek texts we no longer possess as well as other Hebrew texts.

The point is, the KJB got it right because God guided them in both text and meaning. It is God's preserved word in English. Your nasb, niv, esv all have an error and a contradiction when Matthew 10:10 is compared to the other Scriptures, which has not gone unnoticed by the Islamic and atheistic sites.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plural is also found in the majority of all texts as well as C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Uh, well, not so! The plural only appears in a few of the K family and not in the Majority. And "C" as I am sure you are aware is Alexandrian. So I guess you now champion the Alexandrian text?

Skan, I have Hodges & Farstaad's "majority text" right here in front of me and it says rabdOUS, plural, staveS. As for your "Alexandrian text", you should know it is a totally mixed up bag. The two so called "oldest and best mss." Sin and Vat differ even from each other thousands of times in the New Testament.

The only Book I defend as the inerrant words of God is the English text of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. You, on the other hand, are just another bible rummager who places your own mind as the final authority.

Just come out and admit it.

Will Kinney