KJV vs other Bibles

[Ghostdog]

37 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

How many post are we going to have on this topic? 

i think until everyone is converted to kjv lol

[TheMatrixHasU71]

49 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The beautiful thing about the KJV is that it preserves Greek nuances in the New Testament that modern English translations, don't.

Yup

[TheMatrixHasU71]

35 minutes ago, Ghostdog said:

i think until everyone is converted to kjv lol

I see your interests. I think my husband would love you

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Here's something I just found; interesting balanced view on the KJV Greek texts

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm

Oh my this is a deep we'll of a topic. Lol

i read that link which ended up opening more questions than giving answers. Which is good.

I will concede this point, I will withdraw my critical comments regards the textus receptus. I am still in the camp that the original NT Greek that Erasmus released in 1515 was wrought with errors. I have not found anything to refute this claim. BUT there were quick revision that followed the original that cleaned it up. 

But a new can of worms seem to have been opened up for me and that's this east vs west Greek NT's.  The link you provided kinda widdled it down to this and closed with doesn't really matter which one they do not differ in the doctrine they teach. 

There are some things my spidey senses are tingling at. Lots of reading a head of me that's for sure.

Cheers and God Bless

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Another example of a heresy found in some English bibles is Isaiah 7:14 where the "virgin" to bring forth the coming Christ is translated as "young woman" in the Revised Standard bible.

This was brought up in another thread. That's an old RSV translation. I use RSV and it says virgin now. 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

18 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

This was brought up in another thread. That's an old RSV translation. I use RSV and it says virgin now. 

I didnt know that. What is the copyright date on yours? I have one at home (inheritance from father in law's estate and it is a 1952)

 I found a video on Youtube once, Billy Graham False prophet, that talks about the RSV bible which he often pushed and an eminent Hebrew scholar says that virgin vs young woman isn't by any means that only problem with that version. He didn't bring up any specifics but said that there are many places that were in clear violation of the Hebrew

[TheMatrixHasU71]

18 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Oh my this is a deep we'll of a topic. Lol

i read that link which ended up opening more questions than giving answers. Which is good.

I will concede this point, I will withdraw my critical comments regards the textus receptus. I am still in the camp that the original NT Greek that Erasmus released in 1515 was wrought with errors. I have not found anything to refute this claim. BUT there were quick revision that followed the original that cleaned it up. 

But a new can of worms seem to have been opened up for me and that's this east vs west Greek NT's.  The link you provided kinda widdled it down to this and closed with doesn't really matter which one they do not differ in the doctrine they teach. 

There are some things my spidey senses are tingling at. Lots of reading a head of me that's for sure.

Cheers and God Bless

The thing is though one thing we have to remember is that there are likely no real Hebrew/Greek experts here on this board (And I certainly never claimed to be one)

We have to take it on faith that GOD would inspire the KJ translators to use the best manuscripts.

Just because some men will say Erasmus's work is full of errors doesn't make it so. Many such commenters really aren't experts either.

 

[Jayne]

19 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

We have to take it on faith that GOD would inspire the KJ translators to use the best manuscripts

First, let me tell you that I like the King James - alot.  I was saved when a King James Bible was being preached from and I still have one by my bedside to read at night.

But it is not my primary "go to" Bible during the day or for study.  Why?  That doesn't really matter.

Now let me address what you've said here.

If, as you say in the above quote, that God would "inspire" the King James translators to use the best manuscripts, then the King James cannot be "inspired" - which it isn't.  Only the originals are inspired.  The message contained in the King James and others is inspired as the Bible itself says, but the individual English, Spanish, German, Chinese, etc. words are not.

To be "inspired" - as the Bible teaches inspiration of the Bible -  is to start with a blank page - nothing on it at all.  No previous copies, manuscripts, commentaries, translations, man-made opinion, or anything else.

A blank page.

And then the Holy Spirit of God pressed upon the writers of the original autographs what to say.  Word for word.  In Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  Not English.

Anything other than those first three languages are translations only.  Translations are not inspired.  God leads and guides competent translators and praise God for them!  The Word is inspired - it's perfect and holy, but not the mere words of countless languages.

If the King James is inspired by God - the nothing before it was and nothing after it was.

In fact, if anyone says that any translation is inspired, then there are two or more different Bibles - and that's chaos.  The original autographs and whatever translation in whatever language they are defending.

There is only one inspired Word of God and even my beloved King James on my nightstand is not it.  It's message it, but not the Old English words.

[Jayne]

23 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Another example of a heresy found in some English bibles is Isaiah 7:14 where the "virgin" to bring forth the coming Christ is translated as "young woman" in the Revised Standard bible.

This is not a heresy, dear fellow believer.

As I said in the other thread -

I have no problem with Isaiah 7 translating the Hebrew word for young woman as "young woman" or as "virgin".  There's no conservative or liberal slant either way.

There was only one Virgin Birth and that was the birth of Jesus Christ as defined by the Angel Gabriel to Mary, herself, and her understanding that it would be a virgin birth.

But Isaiah 7 is a dual prophecy.

[1] In it's literal context, God is giving a sign to one of the kings of Israel that a particular young woman will have a child and before that child is very old a particular enemy will be defeated.  That immediate prophecy CANNOT be about a literal virgin birth, because - as I said and as you all know - there was only one virgin birth.

[2] In it's secondary context, it IS speaking of the birth of Christ because this prophecy is referred to in the New Testament about being about Christ, also.

Just another dual prophecy from the Bible with an immediate meaning and a long-term meaning.

[Revelation Man]

On 3/24/2017 at 9:36 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

KJV vs other bibles.

Everyone knows that the KJV is the best known translation in history. It is also the most hotly disputed between those that accept the KJV only, like myself, and others who prefer modern translations because older translations didn’t have access to the most ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because of that, there are many who believe that the KJV is riddled with errors, and I would like to prove that is just not so.

One thing I have noticed is that many people who are against the KJV are so because they really don’t understand the nature of the original texts nor the history of the KJV.

Not having a computer, I cant do as thorough a study as I would like here but I will do my best.

One thing that one does have to remember, as anyone knows anyway, is that no one translation is 100% free of error. Likewise no one original text is 100% free of error, not even the tiniest most insignificant ones.

In any text there will always be things like, misspelled words, an unimportant word added or dropped, or the Greek equivalent of not dotting some Is or crossing a few Ts.

God always has a reason for allowing this. To show ONLY GOD IS PERFECT NOT MAN. What matters is that none of these errors do anything to affect OT teaching or the Gospel message in any way.

Ironically enough the so called most ancient texts available today are sometimes the WORST. The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two that come ti mind because they drop several passages of Scripture.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

http://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

Even Origen, ironically himself a heretic, recognised that texts were already becoming corrupted.

The NIV bible today is well known for using these two Egyptian texts as well as the heavily corrupted Greek translations written by the known occultists Westcott and Hort.

Although amongst modern ENGLISH translations today, some are a fair bit better than others, they all uniformly water down scripture either to a greater or lesser degree, usually by denying the veracity of Scripture regarding the divinity or first and second comings of Christ.

I would also like to forestall another argument that many, especially non Christians, have with the KJV, and that is the numerous revisions it has undergone.

That is easily explained away by the fact that the early revisions were nothing more than the translators putting BACK into the bible words and phrases that got DROPPED, not by THEM but the PRINTERS. This was a notorious problem in the earlier days of printing, and bibles were not spared. There is, for example, an infamous KJV, nicknamed the Wicked Bible, because in it, Thou shalt NOT commit adultery drops the NOT (Some say the printer did that intentionally….hmm I wonder why lol).

Later revisions were really not revisions at all the way we might understand them but just attempts at standardizing spelling and grammar.

Some people who are against the KJV will use some horridly weak arguments like this site…

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

On it they show a page of an original 1611 with its fancy calligraphy and archaic spellings and asks Can anyone read this? Well excuse me but people in the 1600s could read that so there goes that argument….we are simply not used to reading that style of writing so the answer is simple.

DUUUH DON’T READ THE ORIGINAL!!!

They also bring up another example

The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

The simple answer to this is entirely due to the differences amongst some manuscripts. They choose according to majority rule. Though as the passage says the structure of the Hebrew can make thing a bit difficult as well.

Also this is completely irrelevant anyway as this is yet another example of one of those unimportant errors that God allows in the bible. Surely these guys can do better than this.

BTW the passage referred to here is this

19:2  And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah *, and was there four whole months

I will just let things go with this as I don’t want this to get too long winded. So I will just leave off with a few other links on the history of the KJV including info on the Tyndale bible that was used in the translation process

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/history-kjv

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament

I love reading the KJV for its prose like passages, BUT.....It has translation errors like most other translations. And they are many, we have the original Hebrew and Greek texts via our computers, there is no excuse for us not to do our homework and supplement the KJV and other versions.........

EXAMPLE #1 Old Testament

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

1.) Confirm = gabar 1396 (Greek Word) meaning to be strong, to prevail or to act insolently.

2.) Oblation = minchah 4503 (Greek) A tribute or an offering

3.) Overspreading = kanaph 3671 (Greek) An edge, a Wing or Quarter (of a building) a pinnacle.

4.) Abominations = shiqquwts 8251 (Greek) Meaning, Disgusting, Filthy, Idolatrous or AN IDOL !!

5.) Desolate = shamem 8074 (Greek) Meaning to Stun, Grown Numb, to Stupefy, or to Devastate !!

So looking at these original Hebrew word Translations, what is this verse (Daniel 9:27) really telling us ? Does it match up with other end time events? Lets delve into it !! Basically this is what I get from verse 27.

 

Daniel 9:27 The Anti-Christ will FORCE and Agreement (Covenant means agreement) on Israel and others, probably the Muslims.  He does so Insolently, his agenda Prevails, he forces this peace/security deal. Then after 3 1/2 years he stops allowing the Oblation or Tribute, (I think to Jesus, who Israel accepts as their Messiah before the Day of the Lord as it says in Malachi 4:5-6) by Israel unto their God, the False Prophet places an IDOL in a Wing or a pinnacle of the TEMPLE and demands all people to worship this IDOL or else they must die. THIS STUNS/SHOCKS OR DEVASTATES Israel, then they heed Jesus' words, they Flee unto the Wilderness where they are protected by God for 1260 Days, because Elijah turned them back to the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10) before the Day of the Lord.

Daniel 9:27 shorter version........The Anti-Christ will force a Peace Deal on Israel, in the Middle of this deal he will renege on his deal, and order the False Prophet to place an Image of the Beast/Himself (IDOL) in the Temple, and will demand all mankind to worship this Image. This Stuns Israel, devastates them, they flee, and he ones who don't are Conquered. 

 

Do further scriptures agree with this account ?

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

IT MATCHES !! 

EXAMPLE #2 New Testament

The Falling Away means a Departing of the Church, not a Departing of the Faith.

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a "Falling Away" from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.

A study I read by Mr. Tommy Ice,  has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”

They were as follows:

1.The Wycliffe Bible (1384)

2.The Tyndale Bible (1526)

3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)

4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)

5. The Great Bible (1540)

6. The Beeches Bible (1576)

7. The Geneva Bible (1608)

Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.

 

One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.

I do not think this has anything to do with an apostasy of the Church. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for 1100 years at the time, just to take a jab at its bitter rival, the Catholic Church.