New Testament Differences

So??? What is your point? There are many very popular books that have been translated into English from the same manuscripts and yet the translations differ considerably. Check out some of them for yourself.

 

Whoever put assembled that web page reveals their ignorance of the issue in this one repeated statement.

 

Been there. Seen it. Done that.

Can you prove which is right & which is wrong, Kidz? What criteria do you use? Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't cut it.

 

in the words of the KJV translators in the prologue of the 1611 First Edition KJV:

Please also note that this was in defense of their marginal notes "where the text is no so clear".

HankD

 

That article includes the Living Bible as a translation. It's just a paraphrase -- why do they have it there? I think that shows either ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

Guess what? You can translate something in another language several ways. I've studied French, Spanish, German, and Italian (and a tiny, tiny bit of Russian -- rusty in all now). You can take a a few paragraphs from a book in any of those languages and translate it several ways in English. So what's the point of this article? That different translations prove some kind of error? That's like totally bogus.

I don't think God speaks only in 17th century English. I asked my hermeneutics professor (who also teaches Greek and Hebrew) what language we would speak in heaven and he said, "Hebrew, of course!"

 

Yet another hit-and-run by Kidz-4-HIM .

It might be different if the material was actually typed out, and Kidz actually hung around to debate. But the sad truth is that to type out said garbage is a lot of work, and to post a link and run is more the style of a hit-and-run poster like Kidz .

Sad. Very sad.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The KJV derived from massive MSS, but MVs derived from a few MSS. Between the KJV and MVS, they derived from those 5,000 MSS. The 99% manuscript evidence supports the KJV. The 1% manuscript evidence supports these MVs.

 

Interesting differences between the KJV and MVs.

 

All mss used by the KJV team were all written way after the Alexandrian Text. The KJV actually believe it or not has just as many errors if not more than the MV. Its a great translation but not any more accurate or better than the MV's.

 

For example, 42 manuscript evidences on Matthew 8:29 support the KJV. 42 MSS had Jesus. MVs omitted Jesus. Ask yourself why MVs did that. Look at these manuscript evidences and MVs -- the KJV is most accurate than any MVs because these MSS support this doctrine of Jesus Christ. MVs did not support it on this verse.

 

Askjo, How many times must you be shown that this is a false statement before you stop making the claim. You know there is a term for someone who knowingly and intentionally says something that has been proven false.

The KJV for the most part follows the Byzantine majority text. But there are notable exceptions where the KJV does not have 99% manuscript support. There are a few places where it has basically 0% manuscript support. Of course, you know this or at least should since this same argument has been refuted repeatedly.

Why do you continue to knowingly, willfully make false statements?

 

Rules of King James Onlyism #449:
If you repeat the same lie enough times, it will eventually be accepted as fact.

This one of the most used (or is that abused) rules of the KJVOlator movement.

 

From the partial quote above, the reader may be wondering what this it is. Could it be men's God given yearning for freedom, God's Holy Spirit or God's Holy Word? No, its the KJV!

Yes, this is taken a bit out of context. No doubt the KJV was used to spread God's Word. However, to personify an English Bible version to this extreme is troublesome (scary). I don't understand how people can so confuse the vehicle with the message itself.

In Christ
Michael

 

The LDS church, David Koresh and Jim Jones and every KJV or one version Only using cultist had or have this kind of UNITY.

Unity goes much deeper than the version/translation of the Bible used by Church menmbers.

There is already doctrinal disagreement and confusion in local churches even KJVO. But the exact oppostite is possible with a variety of translations. Earlier in the thread the statement by the KJV translators was quoted in that they believed that the variety of tranlsations was good to learn the "sense of the Scriptures".

What do you mean by "Alexandrian philosophy"?
Heresy and error (if you include these terms in "philosophy") know no boundaries spiritual, denominational or geographic.

Athanasius was an Alexandrian believer and quite orthodox and The champion of the Trinitarian side of the Arian dispute.

That scribes have botched the text is a given.
Which "family" of texts best represent the originals we can't know (apart from an evidence/faith choice) since we don't have the originals.

Which "errors" are intentional vs unintentional is not always obvious or which variant is correct.

The AV translators gave the reader the choice by marginalizing alternative readings in the first Editions.

The KJV translators studied the varying mss and translations they had available to them and made their choices. Not everyone who is "orthodox" excepts those choices.

HankD

 

This is a classic example of why Gipp and his ilk cannot be trusted.

The king had the KJV made specifically to replace other versions. When the people did not go along with the plan but rather clung to their Geneva Bibles, the CoE with with the direct power and authority of the English monarch made the Geneva illegal. My rebuttal is documented, factual history that anyone can confirm.

The first Bibles that were brought to the new world were Genevas, not KJV's.

BTW, this isn't even an accurate portrayal of US History. The French and Spanish didn't colonize the US. Where they did colonize in the new world, catholicism still thrives... French Canada and Latin America.

Only a fool would swallow this stuff.

 

You know I don't know about anyone else but, when I was in school we played a game called Telephone. One person would say a sentence to someone else, and repeat it around a circle. More often than not that sentence would change competley.

Now if your Bible was traslated by someone who KNEW what the languages were could read and write Hebrew, greek, aramaic, then I say what you have in your had is the Word of God.

If you can look at that Bible and feel you are holding God's book. Then BLESS you. But, I will tell you this.

It's up to the individual what Bible they use, and which one they feel comfortable. I know what I believe and I know what is right FOR me .

It would be like someone saying that Chocalte pudding is the only kind of pudding there is any any other flavor is just NOT pudding.

Brother and sisters,
Come on don't we have more imporatant things in the world to do besides sit here and argue texts? If you feel this STRONGLY, Get the manuscripts in greek , hebrew and aramiac read them and then tell us which one is more accurate.

Please remember hate begets hate. Snide comments only result in more snide comments, and pain.

We should Love our brothers and sisters, not condemn them for what Bible they decide to read.

-jumps off my soap box and returns to my knitting -

 

Well said Lea. I don't care what Bible version people use as long as they USE it. Unfortunately, hard core KJVO proponents refuse to be silenced even after the fallacies and logical gymnastics required to believe that way are shown to be false. Therefore threads like this are needed to make sure that no extreme KJVO misinformation goes unanswered.

(Nothing like jumping right into the fire )

Doug