Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT?

[Logos1560]

The title for this thread is intended to get the attention of readers, but it is not actually the main point or subject of this thread. The overall purpose and subject of this thread is to consider whether a Bible translation (including the KJV) actually preserves every original-language word of Scripture.

The following statement in bold type is my assertion that I consider to be true based on known, verifiable facts.

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Do you agree with my statement in bold type? Can you point out any verifiable facts that you consider to be a problem for it?

According to those known, verifiable facts, I think that many KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates make assertions attempting to apply preservation to the KJV that are not true. I assume that they may sincerely believe what they claim, but the problem is that what they believe may not be true (not proven to be true) or is not true (can be proven not to be true).

The eye-catching or attention-getting title for this thread is based on an assertion by Robert Young that the KJV's NT would be missing about 2000 definite articles that are found in the Greek NT. It may be a rounded-off count. There are many other words "missing" (for which the KJV gives no rendering in English) that would make it over 2,000. I would change the title from "over" to "about" but I cannot edit it.

In the preface to the revised edition of Young’s Literal Translation, Robert Young claimed that “there are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators [of the KJV] have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.”

By the way, I am not suggesting that the KJV is wrong in all cases to omit them. One point is that too often when this accusation of "missing words" is typically thrown out, no exact same measures/standards are applied justly to all Bible translations. According to the same measures/standards that KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates may use to allege missing words in modern English Bibles, the KJV may be guilty of having some of the same-type missing words in other places. For example, there are places where the KJV has no noun in English even though its Hebrew text or Greek text has a noun.

The KJV does not preserve every original-language word of Scripture by providing an English rendering for each and every word.

 

[Yeshua1]

The title for this thread is intended to get the attention of readers, but it is not actually the main point or subject of this thread. The overall purpose and subject of this thread is to consider whether a Bible translation (including the KJV) actually preserves every original-language word of Scripture.

The following statement in bold type is my assertion that I consider to be true based on known, verifiable facts.

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Do you agree with my statement in bold type? Can you point out any verifiable facts that you consider to be a problem for it?

According to those known, verifiable facts, I think that many KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates make assertions attempting to apply preservation to the KJV that are not true. I assume that they may sincerely believe what they claim, but the problem is that what they believe may not be true (not proven to be true) or is not true (can be proven not to be true).

The eye-catching or attention-getting title for this thread is based on an assertion by Robert Young that the KJV's NT would be missing about 2000 definite articles that are found in the Greek NT. It may be a rounded-off count. There are many other words "missing" (for which the KJV gives no rendering in English) that would make it over 2,000. I would change the title from "over" to "about" but I cannot edit it.

In the preface to the revised edition of Young’s Literal Translation, Robert Young claimed that “there are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators [of the KJV] have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.”

By the way, I am not suggesting that the KJV is wrong in all cases to omit them. One point is that too often when this accusation of "missing words" is typically thrown out, no exact same measures/standards are applied justly to all Bible translations. According to the same measures/standards that KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates may use to allege missing words in modern English Bibles, the KJV may be guilty of having some of the same-type missing words in other places. For example, there are places where the KJV has no noun in English even though its Hebrew text or Greek text has a noun.

The KJV does not preserve every original-language word of Scripture by providing an English rendering for each and every word.

Which edition of the TR has all of the Greek words that were penned down in the Originals?

 

[Logos1560]

A Bible translation does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged and without any additions of men. The inspired, preserved original-language words of Scripture are changed to different words in a Bible translation. KJV-only author John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40). Samuel Gipp maintained that “we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired” (Answer Book, p. 86). Marty Braemer claimed: “Change the wording and you change the meaning” (This Little Light, p. 1). Troy Clark asserted: “Changed words cease to be Majority Text Scripture” (Perfect Bible, p. 289). John C. Phillips proclaimed: “The preservation of a work in a perfect state must, of necessity, include all aspects of a work inspired in a perfect state. If any part of the inspiration is omitted, then the product cannot be identified as preserved” (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2).

It is a verifiable fact that Bible translation into English before 1611 and in 1611 did not prevent the original-language words of Scripture from changing during translating since the process of translation actually changes most of them into different English words, changes some original-language words into different forms and different parts of speech, provides no English words for some original-language words of Scripture, and adds many words for which there was no original-language word of Scripture. The truth is that 1611 KJV does not contain all the same, identical original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. When statements/assertions made by KJV-only authors are applied consistently, soundly, and justly, they would become a serious and major problem for a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations. Bob Kendall observed: “Every language has its own unique grammar, its own unique way of placing words in a sentence” (How Firm, p. 53). William D. Mounce noted: “There is not a one-to-one correspondence between languages, and this applies especially to vocabulary” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 199). Dave Brunn asserted: “Ancient Hebrew and New Testament Greek contain grammatical features that do not exist in English” (One Bible, p. 86). Dave Brunn pointed out: “Many features of Hebrew and Greek are impossible to produce in the English language” (p. 185). Hugo Schonhaar noted: “There are constraints with language that do not allow for 100% literal translation” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 271). D. A. Waite maintained that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” (Critical Answer, p. 41).

D. A. Waite wrote: “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 77).

 

[Dave G]

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Do you agree with my statement in bold type?

Yes.
In fact, any translator, interpreter or speaker of more than one language can attest to this.

Can you point out any verifiable facts that you consider to be a problem for it?

No I cannot.

That said, I have a question for you...
What constitutes "valid verification"?
Majority opinion?

To me that doesn't work for a variety of reasons,
some of which are the competing doctrinal positions of most Bible scholars ( many of whom do not even believe whole sections of the Bible, and some do not even believe that the words themselves are truly inspired of God );
So what the majority thinks would not be in accordance with or in agreement with Scriptural principles at all.

In other words, the faith once delivered to the saints ( Jude 1:3 ) does not include opposing sets of truths,
and many of today's scholars are on opposing sides of most doctrinal positions.
That in itself should tell both you and the reader something...

If a group of Christians ( scholars or no ) cannot even agree on what constitutes sound doctrine,
how can they agree on such vital subjects as the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures?
As I see it, they cannot.


Therefore, any "verifiable facts" would fall under the realm of relativity or simply "majority opinion";
and in the world of the Bible, majority opinion simply doesn't work.
As for why it does not work, I'll use this example:

The Roman Catholic Church has roughly 1.2 billion baptized adherents to its doctrines and practices...
At one time ( about 400 years ago ) they outnumbered "Protestants" nearly 1000 to one and Baptists far more than that;
So, my question is, who gets to decide the truth...

The majority?


That didn't work then, so why should it work now?

 

[Dave G]

The eye-catching or attention-getting title for this thread is based on an assertion by Robert Young that the KJV's NT would be missing about 2000 definite articles that are found in the Greek NT. It may be a rounded-off count. There are many other words "missing" (for which the KJV gives no rendering in English) that would make it over 2,000. I would change the title from "over" to "about" but I cannot edit it.

What about other translations in the English?
How many of those do the same, if not worse?

In the preface to the revised edition of Young’s Literal Translation, Robert Young claimed that “there are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators [of the KJV] have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.”

That is his opinion and I respect his right to voice it.

That doesn't mean I'm necessarily in agreement with it without first checking things out for myself...
But I thank you for the information.

 

[Dave G]

According to those known, verifiable facts, I think that many KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates make assertions attempting to apply preservation to the KJV that are not true. I assume that they may sincerely believe what they claim, but the problem is that what they believe may not be true (not proven to be true) or is not true (can be proven not to be true).

Or it may be true and most who profess Christ simply don't care.

The problem is ( at least to me ), the other side cannot do any better;
What they believe may not be true, or is not true...

That "older-is-better" and that their ever-changing collated Greek text contained in NA / UBS is more trustworthy than any other;
Which, in my opinion, is what they essentially tell us every time they use it to produce yet another in the myriad of English ( and now other language ) translations that have been produced starting around 1900 or so.

By the way, I am not suggesting that the KJV is wrong in all cases to omit them. One point is that too often when this accusation of "missing words" is typically thrown out, no exact same measures/standards are applied justly to all Bible translations.

Perhaps they should be, and perhaps if they were, then more of the truth would come out on both sides.

For example, I myself would very much appreciate the CT-only scholars and advocates applying the same exact and just measures that you are advocating, to the usage of their favorite collated Greek text and the use of the varying editions of NA / UBS...
Which are now at 28 and 5 respectively.

But the reality of it is, the accusation of "missing words and verses" gets introduced because of the differing collated Greek manuscripts that are being used in the translation process, versus what was being used up until about 150 years ago.

When advocates of the CT and NA / UBS can effectively demonstrate that their belief of the CT being superior is actually true ( that older-is-better in the Greek, despite equally old witnesses in other preserved writings and languages, and the majority of the extant Greek manuscripts not always agreeing with the CT's readings )...


Then all opposition to their practices and beliefs about what actually constitute the preserved words of God in the Greek should evaporate, should it not?

 

[Dave G]

It is a verifiable fact that Bible translation into English before 1611 and in 1611 did not prevent the original-language words of Scripture from changing during translating since the process of translation actually changes most of them into different English words, changes some original-language words into different forms and different parts of speech, provides no English words for some original-language words of Scripture, and adds many words for which there was no original-language word of Scripture.

I agree, and this practice is in use today, as well.
But I have a question...

Verified by whom?
Sources please?

I'm sure that there are many reading this thread ( besides myself ) that would like to know.

 

[Dave G]

The truth is that 1611 KJV does not contain all the same, identical original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

I agree, as the original languages do not and cannot carry over exactly into English word-for-word precisely...
But in my opinion, what the AV does give is the closest English translation, given the English of the period, to those same Greek and Hebrew words.

Also, I think that the original NASB does a remarkably good job given its usage of the CT and the NA / UBS apparatii of its day...
But I wouldn't recommend it to any believer for that very same reason:

Because it uses NA / UBS.

Bob Kendall observed: “Every language has its own unique grammar, its own unique way of placing words in a sentence” (How Firm, p. 53). William D. Mounce noted: “There is not a one-to-one correspondence between languages, and this applies especially to vocabulary” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 199). Dave Brunn asserted: “Ancient Hebrew and New Testament Greek contain grammatical features that do not exist in English” (One Bible, p. 86). Dave Brunn pointed out: “Many features of Hebrew and Greek are impossible to produce in the English language” (p. 185). Hugo Schonhaar noted: “There are constraints with language that do not allow for 100% literal translation” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 271). D. A. Waite maintained that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” (Critical Answer, p. 41).

I agree with all of this.

D. A. Waite wrote: “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)”

I agree with D.A. Waite here, as well.

 

[Dave G]

Which edition of the TR has all of the Greek words that were penned down in the Originals?

To me that's like asking which edition of the NA or UBS has all of the Greek words that the Lord had His apostles record...

NA 1?
NA 28?

UBS 2?
UBS 5?

It's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

 

[Logos1560]

That is his opinion and I respect his right to voice it.

That doesn't mean I'm necessarily in agreement with it without first checking things out for myself...

It was not mere opinion.

Robert Young's assertion would have been based on his having translated an edition of the Textus Receptus into English, thus seeing or checking out how many definite articles are found in the Greek NT text. Since he said "about 2,000", it may suggest that he could be rounding his count off.

 

[Dave G]

It was not mere opinion.

Respectfully,
I see that it is...especially if it conflicts with another translator's opinions and observations.

Robert Young's assertion would have been based on his having translated an edition of the Textus Receptus into English, thus seeing or checking out how many definite articles are found in the Greek NT text.

OK,
but would those assertions carry equal weight with, say, William Tyndale's, Miles Coverdale's, William Whittingham's, Gregory Martin's or any other translator's?
I'd have to wonder.

I also find it strange that I've seen no mention of this from the 45+ translators of the KJV that would either agree with him or disagree with him.
Did they ever identify their own inability to faithfully translate those same 2,000+ articles from the Greek over to the English?

I mean, if this is true, they had to know that they were there.

Since he said "about 2,000", it may suggest that he could be rounding his count off.

Perhaps.
But again, to me those are his own observations... and ultimately when stacked up against another translator's, I find his to be equal in authority to any other man's opinions;
They are his opinions or observations.

However, say his observations are true...
Should we abandon the other translations and use Young's Literal based on his observations?
If so, then that road would be a long uphill climb.

In my opinion, far too many people have invested precious time in other ones and may not want to make the switch.

Take me for example...
I've used the AV since the Lord called me into the fellowship of the saints in 1978;
I don't see a real need for me to abandon it when I'm confident that it is God's word and can understand it just fine.


I think I'll stay where I am,
even though I've looked at Young's Literal and can find nothing about it that genuinely troubles me.

 

[Logos1560]

What about other translations in the English?
How many of those do the same, if not worse?
.

In at least some places another English Bible may provide a rendering in English for an original-language word where the KJV does not have one in its text although it sometimes gave one in its 1611 marginal note.

1 Kings 13:33

but turned back, and made [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
but made again [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. returned and made”]
and turneth back, and maketh [YLT]
but turned again, and made [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

1 Kings 16:12

by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

1 Kings 17:16

by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Elijah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 8:9
in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
with him [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 9:36

by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 10:10

by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of His servant Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

[Logos1560]

.

Verified by whom?
Sources please?

It has been verified by the KJV translators themselves as they acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes some places where they provided no English rendering for an original language word of Scripture.

It can also be verified by a comparison of the KJV to the original-language texts from which it was translated.

 

[Logos1560]

Steve Combs acknowledged that “languages differ in their use of articles and conjunctions” (Practical Theology, p. 103). William Mounce noted: “Greek can use conjunctions differently than we do in English” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 82). Mounce added: “Almost every sentence in Greek narrative begins with a conjunction” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Kirk DiVietro claimed: “The conjunction does not always need to be translated into English. This is a matter of translator’s discretion and not textual reading” (Where the KJB Leaves the Greek Text, p. 13). Concerning Genesis 5:17; 5:20; 5:25, and Exodus 38:28, Alan Macgregor acknowledged that “the AV omits the conjunction ‘and’ where its use in Hebrew was superfluous in Elizabethan English” (400 Years On, p. 276).

E. W. Bullinger maintained that when the Greek, kai, is used to mean also that “in 60 places (in the A.V.) it is not translated at all” (Figures of Speech, p. 90). At Romans 5:19, TR advocate Charles Surrett asserted that “’also’ is omitted in KJV, but in NKJV and Greek” (Certainty of the Words, p. 117).

Kirk DiVietro also declared: “The article does not always need to be translated into English. This is a matter of translator’s discretion and not textual reading” (Where the KJB Leaves the Greek Text, p. 15). Dave Brunn noted: “Greek often uses the definite article the in places where it cannot be translated literally into English” (One Bible, p. 91). William Mounce observed: “Greek uses the article when English does not, such as with proper names,” and “other times Greek doesn’t use the article when English requires it” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 96).

 

[Logos1560]

Micah 7:3

the corruption of his soul [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
his mischievous desire [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. the mischiefs of the soul”]
the mischief of his soul [YLT]
the lust of his soul [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Zephaniah 1:2

from off the land [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. the face of the land”]
from the face of the ground [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
From the face of the land [NKJV]

Haggai 1:1

by the ministry of the Prophet Haggai [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the ministry of the prophet Aggeus [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Haggai [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Haggai”]
by the hand of Haggai [YLT]


Haggai 2:1

by the ministry of the prophet Haggai [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the ministry of the prophet Aggeus [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by the prophet Haggai [1611 KJV] [1611 margin--“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Haggai the prophet [YLT]

Zechariah 7:2

to pray before the LORD [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. to intreat the face of the Lord”]
to appease the face of Jehovah [YLT]
to seek the favor of the face of Jehovah [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Zechariah 7:7

by the ministry of the former prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the former prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. by the hand of”]
by the hand of the former prophets [YLT]

Zechariah 7:12

by the ministry of the former prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the former prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. by the hand of”]
by the hand of the former prophets {YLT]

Malachi 1:1

by the ministry of Malachi [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Malachi [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Malachi”]
by the hand of Malachi [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

[rlvaughn]

A Bible translation does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged and without any additions of men. The inspired, preserved original-language words of Scripture are changed to different words in a Bible translation. KJV-only author John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40). Samuel Gipp maintained that “we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired” (Answer Book, p. 86). Marty Braemer claimed: “Change the wording and you change the meaning” (This Little Light, p. 1). Troy Clark asserted: “Changed words cease to be Majority Text Scripture” (Perfect Bible, p. 289). John C. Phillips proclaimed: “The preservation of a work in a perfect state must, of necessity, include all aspects of a work inspired in a perfect state. If any part of the inspiration is omitted, then the product cannot be identified as preserved” (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2).

For what, in context, are these people contending? Do they think there is/must be an exact one word to one word correspondence of the words in a Bible translation to the words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Or something else?

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree, as the original languages do not and cannot carry over exactly into English word-for-word precisely...
But in my opinion, what the AV does give is the closest English translation, given the English of the period, to those same Greek and Hebrew words.

Also, I think that the original NASB does a remarkably good job given its usage of the CT and the NA / UBS apparatii of its day...
But I wouldn't recommend it to any believer for that very same reason:

Because it uses NA / UBS.

I agree with all of this.

I agree with D.A. Waite here, as well.

The Nas is just as good, if not better translation then the Kjv, and what doctrines does it affect?

 

[Yeshua1]

To me that's like asking which edition of the NA or UBS has all of the Greek words that the Lord had His apostles record...

NA 1?
NA 28?

UBS 2?
UBS 5?

It's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

Are you not circular reason here that the TR has recorded down all of the Original words of the Lord to us then?

 

[Logos1560]

I stated: Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Yes.
In fact, any translator, interpreter or speaker of more than one language can attest to this.

Those who attempt to claim or suggest that the KJV preserves every one of God's words do not attest to that fact.

They seem to try to mislead and deceive others into believing claims that are not true.

Do those who suggest that the KJV is the preserved words of God attest to that fact?

 

[Logos1560]

Matthew 2:4

where Christ [1611 KJV]
where the Christ [YLT] [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 4:41

Thou art the Christ [1560 Geneva Bible] [YLT]
Thou art that Christ [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
Thou art Christ [1611 KJV]
You are the Christ [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 7:20

John Baptist [1611 KJV]
John the Baptist [YLT] [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 23:39

If thou be the Christ [1560 Geneva Bible] [YLT]
If thou be Christ [1611 KJV]
If You are the Christ [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]