Featured KJV: Why is it the one and others wrong?

Ah yes, the words that the Holy Spirit forgot when He inspired the greek/hebrew originals to us!

 

In doing a translation of any document from any other language, into English, isn't it necessary to do a lot of things to make it "readable"? French to English, for example, isn't word for word in the exact order presented. (If memory serves. It's been a l-o-n-g time since I studied high school French.)

I know I'm probably an odd-ball these days, but I don't see anything to joke about here. Especially, with the implication embedded in the joke and the reflection on God's word. FWIW, I feel the same way when someone treats the NIV (example) that contains God's word, in the same manner.

Both of you know, or should know, that the "originals" don't exist and didn't exist when the KJB, or any other modern version, was authored. Both of you know, or should know, that the same manuscripts were not used for the KJB and the other versions mentioned. Both of you know, or should know, the translation method/approach used by the translators can affect word usage.

Naturally, the number of times an individual word appears will be different and for valid reasons.

FWIW, I do enjoy a good joke. Laughter is often good medicine.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I equate joking about the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and/or the Father to making fun of the victum of a brutal attack. Every time I see this kind of sarcasim, in my mind's eye, I see the beaten body of our Saviour hanging on the cross. Instead of laughing, I want to cry.

 

Now wait a minute!!! For that to be both scholarly and academic it must be documented by an approved referee among the peer reviewers of at least one.

 

All modern versions include Mark 16:9-20 because it's canonical. Cf. the appendix chapter of Metzger's Canon of the NT where he says the same thing, i.e., it's canonical but not original. But if it's canonical, like Hebrews, then to evangelicals it's God's Word for the same reason that Hebrews is! Or at least it should be, or the inspiration of the whole canon may be called into question as the Germans did long ago.

 

Could be thouigh NOT inspired as the rest of the Gospel is, IF added in later on by another person?

Would not change any doctrines if seen as NOT being part of original Gospel as penned by john mark?

 

So if the ending of Mark was Johannine would you accept it? Oh I forgot, you haven't a clue who wrote Hebrews but you accept it, right? Get my drift? We accept Mark's ending because it's in the canon, and it's in the canon because the final NT compiler wanted it there.

 

Very good point! :thumbsup:

 

Who would be its compiler if NOT mark, and when was the entire NT "compiled?"

 

We receive hebrews has it bears Apostolic authority/inspiration, NOT from the 'compiler", but from the fact originated by the Holy spirit!

And long ending Mark could be like John 8, NOT originally written by author, edited in later, NOT inspired, but still in Bible!

was this mysterious 'compiler" inspired by HS too?

 

The fact is you don't know who wrote what. Did Moses write about his own death at the end of Deut and then say that no one since himself every was like unto himself in the history of Israel who communed with God face to face? If he didn't write it, who did? Oh that's right, to you it must not be inspired therefore although it is indeed in the canon. Anyway, this is your logic, not mine. Yes, the final compiler of the NT, be it John or Timothy or a group of inspired apostolic witnesses, was inspired of course.

And as to what you speak of, there is the real and not perceived possibility that copies of earlier individual works or collections were in circulation that were later transcended by the Holy Spirit empowered final edition that came out. Some of those individual editions or collections were corrected to the final edition, and along these lines it would have been easy to notice to add the 21st chapter of John and the end of Mark to all the now superceded copies, but other inspired changes, such as, e.g., John 5:3-4 and 7:51-8:11, could have been overlooked due to their being tucked away in the middle of the work. Nevertheless, I'm not sure about the above conjecture by Frederick Scrivener, since I think there are other reasons that can usually be maintained for why a number of passages' intentional or accidental omission occurred in one or another copy and its descendents, either real or through cross-contamination.

 

Do you hold that those OT/NT "compilers" axctually amended and added additional material to the original documents, that they put in extra verses and doctrines, or that they just brought the various sources used together and "smoothed" out what was originally recorded down?

 

What's the difference?