Sir, a "conjectural emendation" is NOT SCRIPTURE! Those words were ADDED to the KJV thanx to Beza's meddling.
The purpose in pointing it out is to supply more proof that the KJV isn't perfect, & thus the KJVO myth is false.(Besides not having one word of Scriptural support!)
KJV Versions.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 37818, Mar 19, 2021.
Page 7 of 8
-
-
-
Yes, God prefectly preserved His words in the KJV (NOT "KJB") except where He didn't. same is true for the Wycliffe, Tyndale, "Great", Mathews, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, NASV, NKJV, ESV, & several other English versions as well. Betcha can't prove differently ! -
The AV men said they diligently studied many other translations, & that likely included the Vulgate & Rheims. I don't know if they studied the Waldensian or Peshitta versions or not.
-
-
-
-
-
Yet when there is direct first-hand evidence from one of the KJV translators that acknowledged that the 1582 Rheims was consulted and used, it makes it very likely and even fairly certain that the 1582 Rheims is the source followed by the KJV translators in many of those cases of correlation.
Finding other possible sources in some of the cases would not refute the likely use of the 1582 Rheims in cases where there is no direct first-hand evidence that the KJV translators even used those other sources. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Now, none of us were there when any of the Scriptural mss. were made, & wedon't know who made them when or where, nor what their sources were. Thus, we're not qualified to say "This one is corrupt while that one is correct" just because they have a few differences. (The 4 "Gospels" have MANY differences.)
The facts of the preservations of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus seem to show the hand of God at work.
As for "missing verses", the translators were right to not include any that were not in their sources. Now, why do those sources not have them Maybe it's because they're not actually in Scripture ! -
-
-
Page 7 of 8