No Doctrines Are Changed?

All of the Christian love and sharing of God's grace though Christ that is poured out on this particular thread is....well....

 

This verse in the KJV is correct than the NIV because it is very obvious to explain the reason.

 

This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.

I explained the reason why the NIV and NASB (i.e., the Majority Text reading) is right. I think it is obvious that it is right. I don't understand why people are so eager to attack God's word. It is very disappointing and even disgusting to see. I don't understand why people who profess to love God's word spend so much time attacking it. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Commntaries? Well, are they "W/H" commentaries? I checked my commentaries for my Bible study and found that some of them are W/H, W/H with TR and TR. I realized that they are not perfect because their theology is mixed with the W/H and the TR. Why did you focus on scholar's foolish intelligence than God's wisdom?

The TR theology is more sense than the W/H theology.

 

No, so far as I know neither Westcott nor Hort wrote any commentaries on Luke. These commentaries are by Bock (far away the best current commnetary on Luke), Morris, and Hendrickson. There are others, these just happen the be the ones I checked.

I didn't. God's wisdom says "auton." That is all we needed to know. The TR changed the reading to autes. The Majority text agrees that "their" is the correct reading. Are you really telling us that the Majority Text reading is wrong here? If so, please let us know for sure, because if you are granting that the Majority text is wrong here, we have some other questions we would like to ask you.

If you think the Majority text is right here, then why do you argue that the KJV followed the correct reading? It seems you are a bit inconsistent, or perhaps not fully informed.

I wasn't aware that the TR had any theology. So far as I konw, it is version of the Greek text. The most recent edition was assembled by Scrivener in 1894 to more closely reflect the KJV. Even in that, Scrivener had problems because there are some passages in the KJV that have no Greek support. Scrivener was the one who pointed out some of the errors in the KJV.

So who was right? The Majority text (and the modern versions)?? Scrivener and the KJV who said that the KJV had changes and errors in it? You who doesn't seem to be exactly clear on what you are saying here? I am confused. Help me understand.

 

Generalities, Generalities, Generalities. Get
specific. What W/H theology is even
different from a TR theology?
This question is even on topic

Here is a nice TR variation.
In John 18 some TRs have verse 24
"And Annas sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.

Other TRs have added to the end of
verse 13: "And Annas sent
Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high Priest.

In the flow of the story, the saying
belongs after verse 13.

Looks to me (yes, I have authority to
expell deamons, to bind up wounds, to
preach to the poor -- not my own authority
but God given authority) like some copyist
took it upon themselves to correct the
mistake of having the phrase in verse 24
so moved in in after 13. At the same time
clearifying who "he" was, namely "Christ".

Now i said all that to say this:
what doctrine changes because of this
change in the words of the Bible?

BTW, before you get on your high horse,
this variation in the Textrus Receptus
is fully documented in REAL copies of
the King James Version side notes.

 

I did not say W/H wrote their commentaries, but I say the W/H men wrote them.

To prefer "their" is because it contradicts with Scripture. Lev. 12 required purification ONLY for the MOTHER!!

What about the W/H theology?

 

Ed, please name these TRs for me.

 

What about the W/H theology? </font>[/QUOTE]They had Anglican theology... just like the KJV translators... except maybe a little more towards us on some things.

 

I cannot do this.
I read only English.
However, the KJV1611 edition
(not those modern KJVs) contains
footnotes that give some clues
as to what is going on. If they note
a "Gr"* then there is a variation in
the source greek: the Textus Receptus.

So i get my textual variation data
from the margines of the REAL King
James Bible ;(KJB), the real Authorized Version (AV):
the KJV1611 edition.

*If they note a "Or" they are shown variant
translations, for one language is usually
not transferable word-for-word into another
language in all cases.

Didn't they tell you about all this
in your two each 25-minute KJBO briefings?

 

Here's what Matthew Henry had to say about it. Do you think you are wiser or more holy than he was?

This commentary can be viewed on line so I won't waste the bandwidth but you should get the gist of it.

 

Here's what Matthew Henry had to say about it. Do you think you are wiser or more holy than he was?

This commentary can be viewed on line so I won't waste the bandwidth but you should get the gist of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Probably not, but I have heard Mathew Henry was a "baby baptiser".

 

Can i quote you?
I have some KJVO friends that get all
bent out of shape about a symbol
that is on the cover page of the
New King James Version (nKJV).

 

I read it in your KJB.

I still contend that major doctinal differences
come from within the KJB alone.
These differences are a lot more than
any doctrinal differences found between
the KJB and God's Great Wealth of MV
that He has Bountifully put upon us.

 

So you are saying that a translation is exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

It is clear that you have never done any translation. If you had done any foreign language work and any kind of translation you would not make such a statement. So I will give you one very simple challenge just to prove a small point. Sometimes ask a Spanish speaking friend to translate the two questions. Come estas? and Como esta? Just a hint: They translate exactly the same but have very different meanings.

God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.

Could you give some supporting evidence for this statement?

So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does.

 

Amen, Brother Pasotr Larry -- Preach it!