1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Missing Verses in the KJV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Deacon, Jun 13, 2007.

  1. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better theology? Please excuse me if I am wrong, but isn't the NASB of alexandrian text?
     
  2. Gideon

    Gideon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    There have been some interesting ideas put forward in this thread involving critical reasoning. The problem I see is that it all involves substantial guess work and fictional theorising (sounds a bit like the way evolutionists advance their claims). That might be alright (then again it might not be alright) if we are considering the textual transmission of Herodotus' "Histories", or Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars", but we are talking about God's Word. I put it to you that God's Word, and every single one of the words that make up His Word, should be accorded the utmost respect. After all, these words are settled in heaven and revealed on earth. They are pure words, they are the words of life.
     
  3. Gideon

    Gideon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 'Holy Spirit' is in the earlier manuscripts
    available to the Translators of the NASB but not
    available to the Translators of the KJV.




    Ed, I think you will find that both Erasmus (1517) and Beza (1598) had the particular readings you are talking about (I'm sure you already knew that), and thus these readings were known in 1604 when the KJB translators first sat together.

    More important, however, is the fact that even if they were unaware of this "reading" it still would not make the "reading" right.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gideon: //Ed, I think you will find that both Erasmus (1517)
    and Beza (1598) had the particular readings you
    are talking about ... //

    Do you happen to have a readable copy of
    the Translator Notes of Erasmus?
    I know I don't.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Bro. Williams: //Better theology? Please excuse
    me if I am wrong, but isn't the NASB of alexandrian text?

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html

    contains the Preface to the 1995 NASB (New American
    Standard Bible) in searchable mode

    I didn't find the term 'Alexandrian" there.

    Was King David, the Psalm Writer, inspired
    by the Holy Spirit? I beleive so.
    Good theology IMHO.
     
  6. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why side step the question?
     
  7. Gideon

    Gideon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed:// Do you happen to have a readable copy of
    the Translator Notes of Erasmus?
    I know I don't.


    I was talking about the men, not their Greek NT's. Apologies if that was not clear.

    Howevr, I don't need something originally written by Erasmus to know that he had the Vaticanus readings. There are enough secondary sources out there which cite this fact, including books written by famous 19th century critics like Tregelles and Scrivener. If you want to dispute the fact I believe that you should provide some proof for your argument instead of merely casting the burden of proof onto those who disagree with you.

    Anyway, here's a new angle for you. I know that Wycliffe, Erasmus, Tyndale, Stephens, Beza, the King James translators, and the Elizivirs all read the NASB reading a least a number of times in their lives. How do I know? It's in the Latin Vulgate:

    Acts 4:25 qui Spiritu Sancto per os patris nostri David pueri tui dixisti quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania

    For the English translation, here's the Catholic Rheims bible of 1582:

    Acts 4:25 Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, hast said: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people meditate vain things?



    Check mate?
     
    #47 Gideon, Jul 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hit your question head on and smashed it to pieces.
    Is the Latin Vulgate part of the Alexandrian Texts?

    No. However ,The Latin Vulgate was the Standard for
    the churches for 1500 years - 5 times as long
    as the KJV1769 Edition Bible. The "Holy Spirit" phrase
    is missing from the KJVs Edition - it was NOT
    and 'addition' by the NASB.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by av1611jim
    No. Nothing was left out, but something was definitely ADDED!:laugh: :laugh:


    Are ya SURE? Or is this just a coupla GUESSES? If you're SURE, lessee some PROOF.
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does that have to do with anything, whether or not it is true? :confused:

    Ed
     
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Translation, at any given point, does not necessarily equal overall theology. Just FTR.

    Ed
     
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yawn! YAWN! Even my awakening bit did not require as big a stretch, as
    If I could stretch that far, I coulda' been an NBA star!

    Ed
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    New USA roadside sign that might be appropriate for this thread:

    "Watch for Falling Locks"

    Ed
     
  14. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should I take that you are unfamiliar with the differences in the routes of the texts? Alexandria and Antioch?

    And i think your (sic) is misplaced.
     
  15. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    streth a little further for those alexandrian texts you use and you should be fitly out of joint.
     
  16. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sir, if you think you hit it on the head, you may want to get a readjustment on your glasses.

    That Latin vulgate you speak of was commisioned by the whore of revelation, along with its source manuscripts. Why would anyone follow after that harlot and her works?

    Not to mention, yes it was the Bible the church used, but also the Bible the church kept from its people.
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Alexandrian" is properly capitalized, as it is a reference to a proper noun. Ed's "(sic)" was not misplaced." Signed, Language Cop

    "Thanks, L.C."

    Ed
     
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said I supposedly "use" "Alexandrian" texts? I certainly did not. Course, you use some of them as well, No?

    Ed
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    To equate (implied) the Roman Catholic church to "the whore of revelation (sic)", is an interpretation, at best. It may or may not be an accurate description to describe the Roman Catholic church, as well as many others, as "a whore", but Scripture doesn't declare any particular one to be such, explicitly. Or that the 'harlot' is even a "church" for that matter. One could accurately describe her, perhaps, as 'a religion', I'd say, but even that is an interpretation.

    Ed
     
    #59 EdSutton, Jul 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2007
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, was the phrase omitted by the KJV or added by later versions?
     
Loading...