Featured KJV vs the original Greek

The interlinear literal translation of the Greek New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

various readings of the editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth.

 

The King James, as well as most other translations, contain enough of God's revelation for the Holy Spirit to use it/them for God's intended purpose of convicting sinners of their need of the Savior.

 

Yes, as the KJV is a very good translation, as not as bad and archiac as some see it being, but also not nearly as KJVO see it!

 

I have to ask you then, was Matthew 4:4 true before or after 1611/1769? You demand that verse speaks of us having to have a perfect Bible and when we state that no translation is perfect you sally this verse out. But what then was the purpose of this verse before 1611? That verse is not stating what you are saying. Otherwise God would be a liar for 1611 years, because he did not preserve His word until then. God demanded that man needs to live off of every word but then did not provide it for 1611 years. That is simply retarted.

Jesus is simply making a point that man cannot live by physical means alone. He instead lives by every word that comes out of God's mouth. IF God speaks, it means something. It is foolish to act like all we need is physical things. We need spirtual nourishment, and every single word God has ssaid man lives off of. We do not need every single word perfectly translated to us, to live off of them. To state that I need a perfect translation is an abuse of the text. Even if the KJV is perfect, you do not understand every word of it anyways, and I would argue understanding it wrongly is the same as not having it in the first place. If I understand the first part of 1 Timothy 5:23, "Drink no longer water" as never ever drink water, then I am not living off the words of this passage and I might as well not have it. But according to you I need every word in order to live. And if you do not perfectly understand every passage in the Bible so how can you expect to live off of every single one of them? With that being said, how can you claim that this verse demands every person to have every single one of God's and to live by them if they could not for 1600 years and even though you claim to have them, I'm sure you would admit you do not understand every portion of them. How do you think John Wycliffe and William Tyndale understood this verse? How do you think the average layperson understood this verse before 1611? I can assure you they did not understand it the way you did. But instead understood it as, man cannnot live off of the physical, but they live by what God says.

 

I disagree.
He's making a point that each and every word of God, to the believer, is what we live by.

They are the words of eternal life, as Peter confessed here:
John 6:59-69.

What exactly, is "an average layperson"?
The Bible never speaks this way, which is why I don't believe in "clergy / laity distinction".

Rather, I firmly believe that every one of Christ's sheep can indeed, lay hold on God's words and understand them for themselves.
We don't need men to teach us that understanding ( 1 John 2:20-27 ), but God gives us teachers to teach us the Scriptures.

May God bless you sir.

 

So you just completely ignore my original question. Were these words true before 1611 or not? You apply it to you having every word, what did this verse mean before 1611?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

I also see that you seem to be completely ignoring my points as well.
I'm sorry sir, we will have to disagree.

I wish you a good day.

 

What points have you made? You said "I disagree" but then failed to tell me how we get these every words before 1611. You cannot just say "No you" and expect that to be answer.
Where does the believer get these "every words" that you claim we must have. Jesus stating in context that bread is not the only thing that matters in life makes perfect sense. Jesus saying that every man needs a perfect translation, aka the KJV does make sense and neither does Deuteronomy 8:3. When God spoke those words those thousands of years ago, can you honestly tell me He was referring to the KJV and not lets say the Geneva. God showed the Israelites that if they chose to ignore the spiritual they would have died. But instead God taught that them that man cannot just expect to live off of bread and ignore providence and the wonderful hand of God that not only provides food for us but even the sparrow in the field. Food does not just provide itself. God is the one proivdes the rain, God is the one who grows the plant, God is the one who provides breath for the creature to live. To ignore this to read KJV nonsense in it, is just sad. Read Deuteronomy 8:3 and tell me what Bible these people were reading in the wilderness, because the passage is clearly refering to what God says and decrees and how man cannot function without Him. And I don't even know what you are trying to say in quoting John 6:59-69, especially considering these words were not even written down for 1600 years for people to read. More time has passed where these words were not written down, then they were. Go look at Tyndale's translation and Wycliffe's and tell me if these words are the same. Were those words not true because Tyndale translated them a little differently? Did Tyndale's translation mean nothing? Did nobody understand the words of Matthew 4:4 until Peter Ruckman? These are serious questions that I'm not expecting an answer from, that men like John of Japan, and anyone before 1611 could answer in their sleep. Matthew 4:4 applies just as much to Tyndale's and Wycliffe's translation as it does the KJV. To you. I have no idea what that verse means to those translations.

Then you mentioned not knowing what a layperson is. By that I mean anyone who job is not studying the Bible or working constantly in the ministry. Not everyone is lucky enough to be be able to study and preach the Bible for a living. And anyone who does certainly has a better understanding of it than the guy who does not. Not that this means the pastor is closer to God or more important, but anyone who studies the Bible will certainly know more and understand more than the guy who does not study as much.

But it seems to me, you do not have a responce and even if I answered this at the beginning you would not answer anyways because you have no idea how to answer. If I responded about something about how the modern versions are better because they include better readings, you surely would have responded. If I mentioned how the modern versions are better because of the text and closer to the orginal Greek, you surely would have responded. If I mentioned how the modern versions are better because they treat the deity of Christ more strongly, then you surely would have responded. But instead I dealt with the issue in which you do not have an answer and you defaulted to the good ole bait and switch. At least say you do not have an answer, because I at least can respect that.

 

Better yet, was the Catholic Vulgate a legit translation, as Erasmus took some of it into His greek TR text!

 

Which TR and which version of the KJV are the only right ones?