Variations/alterations for variation sake?

Tilting at windmills again, eh? What a shame.

 

Might as well 'tilt with windmills'.
One can only blow away the KJVO theory
a couple of times a day with this one:

-----------------------------------------------------

Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Margin note:
|| Some read, Iosias begater Iakim, and
Iakim begat Iechonias.

Yes, the first footnote in the KJVs
blows KJVO right out of the water. This variant
footnote shows that the translators of the KJVs
had at least two different sources called collectively
The Textus Receputs (TRs).
The KJVs translators didn't have one and only one
source and the KJVs don't constitute one and
one one Bible.

God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all valid English translations collectavly and individualy!

 

God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all valid English translations collectavly and individualy![/quote]

My goodness. It is statements like this one that make Bible believers wonder if any one Bible is reliable and why KJVO people believe theirs is it. They want something surer than the above froth, and decide they're just going to stick with what they got. So, they find reasons why it is the ONLY word of God.

Come now, "Collectively and Individually"??? Ed! Are you serious? You need to go back to an early KJVO book and look at the simple comparisons to see that all Bibles are not the same, so all Bibles cannot be preserving the Word of God. A Mazda is not a luxury car. This is nonsense. A Lincoln is not an Economical Compact.

Now, Ed. It is true that the KJV has some issues, but to say that you take any two Bibles and compare two verses which disagree in message (not just wording) and say, "THEY SAY THE SAME THING!" is sheer nonsense!:BangHead:

I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

 

PrimePower7: //A Mazda is not a luxury car.
This is nonsense. A Lincoln is not an Economical Compact.//

Yes, a Mazda /NIV/ is not a luxury car /HCSB/.
A Lincoln /NKJV/ is not an Economical Compact /ASV/.
But the Mazda, luxury car, Lincoln, and Economical Compact
are all modern vehicles. Along with the 17 century
horse carts /KJVs/ which is also a vehicle, these
items are useful for getting you where you are going,
under various circumstances.

I used to say:
God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all English translations collectively and individualy!

But folks on BB (Baptist Board) convinced me that
//'valid' English translations// is even better.

I also tryed to explain the logic of my beliefs.
But non-thinking folks ignorant (not knowing) about
logic succedded only in misunderstanding what I said.
I said something like :
//It is an assumption that
God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//

Not understanding assumption, it went over their
pointy heads??? They though 'assumption' meant the
same as 'guess' and figured i'd guessed wrong.

I changed to something like:
//It is a logical assumption that
God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//

Hoping folks would notice that 'logical assumption'
doesn't mean 'guess'. I was slow to catch on.
Here we go, people who use an 18th Century (1769)
Bible might understand this:

//It is Axiomatic that:
God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//

By contrast, certain small minded folks who don't even
understand logic make this as their translation axiom:

Axiom: The KJV is God's Word for all time.

This makes a lousy Axiom, for it can be shot through with
holes. The first hole should is the Axiom might be
right if read:

The KJVs are God's Written God's Word for all time.


Anyway, anybody who starts with
//The KJVs are God's Written Word for all time.//
aught to be able to prove the proposition that
"The KJVs are God's Written Word for all time"

But that is just simple logic, not complex arguing.

BTW, I am serious.
I'm 63 years old and CRAMIN' FOR LIFE'S FINALS.

 

The KJV translators seemed to have drawn heavily from the RCC 1582 Rheims Version of the NT. Many verses are word-for-word.

Here is an example of 2 variations in one passage which have doctrinal implications:

KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

DRA Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

Strange, though the Rheims promotes "penance" rather than "repentance" the Rheims correctly follows the Greek en translating it "in" rather than the KJV "with" (Rheims - "in" water, "in" the Holy Ghost) rather than (KJV - "with" water, "with" the Holy Ghost). ​

Each promoting a pet doctrine?

HankD​

 

I prefer the the translation of the Greek en as "in" at this verse because I believe is a better description of the proper meaning of "baptize", that is, the immersion or dipping in water (not just with water).

However, "with" is an acceptable English rendering of en, depending upon the understanding of the context. My greater disappointment is not in the choice of preposition but that both versions completely avoided translating baptismo, leaving us with merely a transliteration of the Greek.

 

Could be acceptable, yes but as you indicate, is it accurate?

I believe if water was meant to be instumental rather than locative in this passage then the preposition meta would have been used.

HankD