Featured I wanna bang my head

This is not about KJVO, it is about versions not saying the same thing, not giving the same meaning. This particular version (can't remember which) gave the impression that it is always sin to be angry at another person. If so, Jesus would have been a sinner when he drove the money changers out of the temple.

The King James makes it clear that it is only OK to be angry at another person for a just reason. If somebody broke into your house and stole all your possessions, that is a legitimate reason to be angry at them. If your neighbor buys a new car and you are envious, that is a sin.

 

Good luck with that.

 

If that is the worst error one can get from reading a MV, then I can live with it.

Can you come up with something a bit more damning? I highly doubt it.

 

Now how do you know that?

 

I know they are different, that is not what I'm asking. I am asking you how you know the KJB is missing words. How do you know exactly what this verse is supposed to say and what it is not?

 

First, The KJV doesn't say that it's ok to be angry for a "just" reason. You are adding the word "just" there..

However,
It doesn't say sin, but "danger of judgment." To interpret sin there, you would have to say that Jesus sinned when he called someone a fool (Matthew 23:17). "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

 

Here is what Will Kinney wrote concerning Jude 25;

 

interesting question. It's something that good people can research and disagree. You quoted below will Kenny which looks at more of a majority text type preference. Some look at more than just the majority.

One cannot just do a comparison and say one has added/deleted. As you said, "they are different." If you believe that the words were not originally in Jude, then one would believe they were added in older manuscripts and then removed later(corrected). I one believes they are part of what was originally written would believe they were removed.

so in other words, we can disagree with which reading is right or wrong. It's not about translators trying to "remove" parts of the Bible or "add" parts of the Bible, but about trying to put in what they believe was originally said.

 

Not if you have a version that omits "without a cause." If you rely on that version as your Truth, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to get angry when someone steals your possessions. Otherwise, you are sinning when you get angry :laugh:

 

Hi Fred,

Interesting you brought up this textual problem. I wrote a little piece last year and discussed the anger problem in Matthew 5:22 on pages 13–20 of the paper which may be downloaded here:

Identifying Real Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture: "Some Guidelines Based on Probable Orthodox Corruptions from the Gospel of Matthew."

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

No one really knows what is "corrupt" and what isn't.

But even the "corrupt" versions present the Gospel, present Jesus as the virgin-born Son of God, present a blood sacrifice as necessary for the remission of sins, etc.

If they were trying to destroy Christianity, they did a poor job of it.

 

The KJV-only theory based on the use of fallacies and the use of divers measures is illogical.

Do you object to the KJV-only use of the begging the question fallacy, the fallacy of special pleading, the fallacy of false dilemma, the fallacy of composition?

Winman, are you actually suggesting that the Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which the varying editions of the Textus Receptus and the KJV were based are not the preserved word of God since they had some missing words, phrases, clauses, and verses [if compared to the KJV]?

Is it logical to imply that the underlying text for the New Testament of the KJV depends upon Greek manuscripts that are not the preserved word of God according to a consistent application of your own faulty reasoning?

 

You were talking about the exact same type differences that I pointed out between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV since some of those differences also involve whole verses.

There was those same type differences in the varying editions of the Textus Receptus on which the different pre-1611 English Bibles were based. Different editions of the Textus Receptus added verses and clauses not found in an earlier edition because they followed a different Greek manuscript or manuscripts at a place. Later editors of TR editions consulted more varying Greek manuscripts that differed in some places from those few manuscripts used by Erasmus. Erasmus had even added some readings not found in his Greek manuscripts into the Textus Receptus by translating from the Latin Vulgate.

 

Nice article Jonathan! Good work. It's one the most extensive collations and analysis of the Matthew 5 "without cause" variant I've seen.
Despite that it still leaves me pondering the original text - but in either case doctrine is uneffected.
This variant has confounded commentators since the second century - without cause :laugh:.
Anyone new believer confused by this variant should be lead by a mature Christain into an understanding of the intent of the passage - rather than toward a single-version dependency.

Rob