But did this man fully understand the incarnation of Christ? Or was he speaking of the man who stood before him?
KJO point of view
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Winman, Dec 17, 2011.
Page 3 of 6
-
When the '52 RSV substituted "young woman" for "a virgin" in Isa 7:14, that was too abrupt, and an uproar ensued as that pastor pointed out. They were not subtle enough. So, since then the MVs have gone back to "a virgin" as the KJB has always said.
But they didn't give up, they changed Luke 1:34 to say "I have no husband" where Mary really said, "I know not a man". Huge difference in meaning, but they are far more subtle here. They also substituted "father" for "Joseph" in several verses implying Jesus was conceived of an earthly father. Why would anyone do this?
Folks that read only MVs are not aware of these subtle changes and are taught error without being aware of it. Quite clever. -
-
Luke 2:33
Several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Thus, it is likely that Erasmus's Greek text had "father" at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].
Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that supposedly attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth? Would they imply that the KJV is a revision of earlier Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to show or prove corruption in the claimed other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors and posters in effect claimed that there was corruption in their own good line or stream?
Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the KJV denied the virgin birth and attacked the deity of Christ when it referred to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" at John 1:45 and John 6:42? -
They knew Isa 9:6 that said a child would be born who was "The mighty God", and "The everlasting Father".
Why would you defend those who wrote this footnote? It is inexcusable.
All these changes show those who produced these versions had an agenda. They are attacking Jesus directly. -
-
Some early and impressive witnesses as per NET notes lack the words in verse 38 up through v.39a. It's a textual variant.
-
I'll let other folks decide which is more convincing, my simple points, or your endless lists of typos. -
The evidence has been provided that shows that other English translations present the deity of Christ more clearly and prisely than the KJV in some verses such as 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5. -
-
-
-
The Scriptures do not teach your modern, KJV-only theory. -
William Tyndale and the KJV
William Tyndale is known as the father of our English Bible. Because so much of the KJV comes from Tyndale's Bible, one KJV-only author Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV" (p. 6). KJV-only author William Bradley identified Tyndale as "the principal translator" of the KJB (Purified, p. 51).
KJV-only author David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). Paisley wrote: "The Authorized Version is not a new translation but rather a revision of a great number of English Bibles which went before" (Plea, p. 24). In an appendix in Waite's Defined KJB, S. H. Tow noted that "Tyndale's Bible became the foundation of other Protestant Bibles" (p. 1668).
Even Peter Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them [Tyndale and Wycliffe, or the Geneva Bible]. They have substantially the same
Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman also stated: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). -
-
-
-
But it is obvious the KJB translators had texts that differed from Tyndale here and chose those texts. The KJB had many, many texts available and performed many tests to determine which texts were authentic, and which were not. They rejected many of the texts they had available to them.
They also had access to many of the texts used by the MVs and rejected them.
So, the argument that the two texts are the same is untenable. -
Page 3 of 6