KJV Versions.

[robycop3]

You can take a look at the info provided at this link:
Beza and Revelation 16:5 - King James Version Today
What is your goal in pointing this out? To have me come to a point where I doubt that God is incapable of preserving His Words in a Bible? I’m certainly not here to “win” as you’ve stated but you may be, I’m just sharing what I believe to be the truth.

Sir, a "conjectural emendation" is NOT SCRIPTURE! Those words were ADDED to the KJV thanx to Beza's meddling.

The purpose in pointing it out is to supply more proof that the KJV isn't perfect, & thus the KJVO myth is false.(Besides not having one word of Scriptural support!)

 

[robycop3]

The reason for it in context comes down to covetousness.

“We must be careful not to think that 1 Timothy 6:10 is condemning money itself. The condemnation is against the "love" of money. Hence misguided are the criticisms that money did not exist during Lucifer or Adam's time or that money does not cause certain evils. It is the "love of money" that has existed from time immemorial. This love of money is the love of having more of X in order to have more of Y which belongs to another person. Hence the love of money is the act of coveting. "Covet" means "to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another" (Merriam-Webster). The context of 1 Timothy 6:10 makes a connection between this love of money and the act of coveting, for the two are the same:
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Even without being philosophical, common sense dictates that people love money because they love having more of what belongs to other people. One could have this kind of love whether or not money exists as a physical object. This "love of money", or the act of coveting, certainly existed at the time of Lucifer's rebellion and man's original sin. Lucifer coveted God's throne (Isaiah 14:13) and man coveted the forbidden fruit. Hence it can be said that the love of money is the root of all evil.”

Did you miss this:

“In the first place ALL Bible translations frequently place a definite article "the" when it is not in the Greek text and omit it when it is there in the Greek. Even the Holy Ghost does the same thing when we compare the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke. Often the definite articles are found in a phrase in one gospel and not in the other.

This is not uncommon nor inaccurate in the least. There are several examples of both in all versions right here in 1 Timothy. A small sampling of examples are found in I Timothy 3:16. There is no definite article before "the" flesh, "the" Spirit and "the" world, yet all versions put them in the English text.

Likewise the definite articles are not translated in the NASB in 1 Tim. 6: 1 in 'the' masters, 'the' God and 'the' doctrine.”

But adding "the" in 1Tim. 6:10 makes the KJV's rendering inaccurate. Kinney has no excuse for that.

 

[robycop3]

Would my admittance grant you solace? I believe God perfectly preserved His words for us in the KJB.
Can you say the same?

What's a "KJB"? A new political action committee?

Yes, God prefectly preserved His words in the KJV (NOT "KJB") except where He didn't. same is true for the Wycliffe, Tyndale, "Great", Mathews, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, NASV, NKJV, ESV, & several other English versions as well. Betcha can't prove differently !

 

[robycop3]

The AV men said they diligently studied many other translations, & that likely included the Vulgate & Rheims. I don't know if they studied the Waldensian or Peshitta versions or not.

 

[rlvaughn]

About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18).

Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30).

Thanks. Unlike the case in Colossians, here on these two passages, the notes of John Bois (at least what Allen transcribes on pages 18 and 30) do not mention the Rheims translation or its readings in either of these passages. We should be careful to remember that correlation is not necessarily causation.

 

[rlvaughn]

What's a "KJB"?

Says the guy who asked about the LSB a few days ago!

 

[robycop3]

Says the guy who asked about the LSB a few days ago!

I was being sarcastic. There's NO one translation of the Bible; they're all versions or editions.

 

[Stratton7]

What's a "KJB"? A new political action committee?

Yes, God prefectly preserved His words in the KJV (NOT "KJB") except where He didn't. same is true for the Wycliffe, Tyndale, "Great", Mathews, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, NASV, NKJV, ESV, & several other English versions as well. Betcha can't prove differently !

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 1) - Different Underlying Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts | The Excelsior Springs Church

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 2) - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; Changes in the NIV | The Excelsior Springs Church

 

[rlvaughn]

I was being sarcastic. There's NO one translation of the Bible; they're all versions or editions.

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic toward Stratton. You should have also been sarcastic with yourself when you asked about the "LS it's not a B". (But you weren't, and none of us were sarcastic with you when when we gave you info about the LSB. Perhaps we should have been.)

 

[Logos1560]

We should be careful to remember that correlation is not necessarily causation.

Correlation does not always equal causation.
Yet when there is direct first-hand evidence from one of the KJV translators that acknowledged that the 1582 Rheims was consulted and used, it makes it very likely and even fairly certain that the 1582 Rheims is the source followed by the KJV translators in many of those cases of correlation.

Finding other possible sources in some of the cases would not refute the likely use of the 1582 Rheims in cases where there is no direct first-hand evidence that the KJV translators even used those other sources.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would my admittance grant you solace? I believe God perfectly preserved His words for us in the KJB.
Can you say the same?

Nope, for that would apply only to the inspired Originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

That could be considered bible idolitry. It is certainly error. Every translation has mistakes. No one is a perfect translator. There are many good ones, but no perfect translators. The KJV may be the best translation in use. It may be more correct than most other bibles most of the time. But it is not always correct. It is not the KJV that is a problem. It is the "Onlyism" that is the error.

I have read where certain KJVO claim that John was referring to the Kjv as being the Logos of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Certainly Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Translators had a far greater impact with the 1611 Translators than the Rheims New Testament. But on rarer occasion, the KJV does follow the Rheims translation against the others. So the Rheims has less influence than the others by far. But the Rheims does have some smaller influences.

By using both the Rheims and latin Vulgate in places, are they accrediting they were also inspired?

 

[robycop3]

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic toward Stratton. You should have also been sarcastic with yourself when you asked about the "LS it's not a B". (But you weren't, and none of us were sarcastic with you when when we gave you info about the LSB. Perhaps we should have been.)

Big difference between asking about a version which I know nothing about & working against a proven false doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 1) - Different Underlying Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts | The Excelsior Springs Church

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 2) - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; Changes in the NIV | The Excelsior Springs Church

Do you also apply the same standards to problems found in the Kjv?

 

[rlvaughn]

Big difference between asking about a version which I know nothing about & working against a proven false doctrine.

You have claimed before you don't call any version Bible, that is, as in KJB, NASB, etc. Yet, you did write "Legacy Standard Bible" and "LSB." I don't care what you call it, but consistency here is a jewel that you apparently do not have.

 

[robycop3]

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 1) - Different Underlying Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts | The Excelsior Springs Church

Corruption in Modern Bible Versions (Part 2) - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; Changes in the NIV | The Excelsior Springs Church

Thanx, but I've seen all this before.

Now, none of us were there when any of the Scriptural mss. were made, & wedon't know who made them when or where, nor what their sources were. Thus, we're not qualified to say "This one is corrupt while that one is correct" just because they have a few differences. (The 4 "Gospels" have MANY differences.)

The facts of the preservations of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus seem to show the hand of God at work.

As for "missing verses", the translators were right to not include any that were not in their sources. Now, why do those sources not have them Maybe it's because they're not actually in Scripture !

 

[robycop3]

You have claimed before you don't call any version Bible, that is, as in KJB, NASB, etc. Yet, you did call write "Legacy Standard Bible" and "LSB." I don't care one what you call it, but consistency here is a jewel that you apparently do not have.

Now that I know what it is, it'll become the "LSV" in my vocabulary.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanx, but I've seen all this before.

Now, none of us were there when any of the Scriptural mss. were made, & wedon't know who made them when or where, nor what their sources were. Thus, we're not qualified to say "This one is corrupt while that one is correct" just because they have a few differences. (The 4 "Gospels" have MANY differences.)

The facts of the preservations of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus seem to show the hand of God at work.

As for "missing verses", the translators were right to not include any that were not in their sources. Now, why do those sources not have them Maybe it's because they're not actually in Scripture !

the differences between variants for ALL of the various Greek texts amount to maybe what 2%, and none affecting doctrines?

 

[robycop3]

the differences between variants for ALL of the various Greek texts amount to maybe what 2%, and none affecting doctrines?

Not to mention in the KJV the difference between the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew & Mark.