Featured Believed King James was most accurate, now unsure what to think

“To determine the question before us,
it is still necessary that we should acquire
a precise knowledge of the fundamental tenets
of those heretics whom the apostles opposed.

"St. John has very expressly declared,
that they ‘denied the Father and the Son;”
having disputed that “Jesus was the Son of God,”
and that “he was come in the flesh.’

"With this representation, exactly accords the account
which we receive from the tenets of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians;
those heretics whom the apostles expressly opposed.

"They ‘denied the Father,’ not merely disputing his paternity,
in denying his only-begotten Son,
but representing him as

"a being who was removed from the care
and consideration of earthly things;

"who had permitted the creation of the world
by beings of an inferior and angelical nature,

"and had consigned it to their superintendence.

"They ‘denied the Son,’ as disallowing his eternal filiation,
and degrading him into the order of secondary and angelical existences.

"Thus far the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians agreed.

"They agreed also in ‘denying that Jesus was the Christ;’
though they maintained this doctrine under different modifications.

"The Cerinthians, dividing the person of Jesus Christ,
considered Jesus a mere man;
born in a natural manner from Joseph and Mary;
but mystically united with the angelical being Christ,
who descended upon him at the time of his baptism.

"This union, they conceived,
was dissolved at the time of the crucifixion;
the man Jesus having suffered on the cross,
while the impassible Christ ascended into the heavens.

"The Nicolaitans, ‘denying that Jesus was come in the flesh,’
considered Jesus Christ a mere phantasm,
having a form which resembled flesh,
but which consisted of an ethereal essence.

"At the time of the crucifixion,
they held that he secretly withdrew himself,
while Simon the Cyrenean suffered in his likeness."

From:
The ESV is a P--snip--n of the Word of God.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ESV CLAIMS

3. TRANSLATORS of the RSV

4. ESV FURTHER CLAIMS

5. TWELVE BASIC RULES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

6. TEXTUAL CRITIQUES DECEIVED
AND THEIR DECEPTION OF OTHERS

7. FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS CAN BE DECEIVED

8. PRESERVATION OF THE WORD OF GOD

9. WHERE THEN DID THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE KJV AND THE NEWER VERSIONS COME FROM?

10. HISTORY OF THE NESTLE-ALAND EDITIION,
WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE ESV

11. WHO WERE BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT
AND FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT?

12. VATICANUS AND SINIATICUS

13. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” 17 COMPLETE VERSES

14. MORE VERSES REMOVED

15. WARNING FOR THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY
OR ADD TO GOD’S WORD!!!!!

16. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” OVER 33,000 WORDS
IN JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT!

17. THE ESV AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

18. ESV AND SALVATION

19. THE ENGLISH SUB-STANDARD VERSION
...

"THE notion of a literal identity between the present copies of the inspired text,
and the original edition, which was published by the sacred writers,
is a vulgar error, which finds as little foundation in reason, as justification in fact."

from:
An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate:
by Nolan, Frederick, 1784-1864

 

@Alan Gross,
Regarding Acts of the Apostles 15:11, ". . . But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. . . ." The addition of "Christ" seems to me to be the better reading. But only a small 5% of the manuscripts of Acts adds it.

 

Logos, your study is vanity. You are interested in Bible study for the wrong reasons, IMO. All this stuff you post exalts yourself and those you follow. When studying the scriptures one should use the KISS method. My head spins when I read your comments.

 

One should understand the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts handed down from the original autographs are the source words of God that God had given us. Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Matthew 5:18.

". . . For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. . . ."

 

Your non-humble opinion is wrong. I am interested in what the Scriptures state and teach, and I am interested in the truth concerning the Scriptures. Misleading and inaccurate claims should be corrected.

Modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching with its dependance upon use of fallacies and use of divers measures [double standards] is vain since it attempts to advocate a doctrine of man as a doctrine of God.

 

AMEN!


Important Differences Between the Textus Receptus
and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text.
"The King James Bible is a translation of an edition of the Greek New Testament text called the Textus Receptus.

"Most modern translations are based on an edition of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text.

"The differences between the two texts are many and important.

"Textus Receptus readings generally provide stronger doctrine.

"The following list (at the link below) shows some of the more doctrinally significant readings that are in the Textus Receptus (and in many cases in the Byzantine and Western as well) but are missing in the NA/UBS text."

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs

This is some of the first examples;

How can we say God's Word has been Preserved, in the modern translations, when God's Word is routinely omitted? We can't.

And they didn't even try. That was not their intention.

SOMEONE WANTED THESE WORDS LEFT OUT, ON PURPOSE.

"Reference & Variant;

"Matthew 1:25; The Textus Receptus says Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" son, which implies that Mary had other sons later.

"This truth exposes the error of the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

"Matthew 5:22; The Textus Receptus says anger is sin if it is "without cause."

"Matthew 5:44; The Textus Receptus includes, "Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."

"Matthew 6:1; The Textus Receptus says not to do "alms" before men.
The Nestle-Aland says not to do "acts of righteousness" before men.

"Matthew 6:13; The Textus Receptus includes, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

"Matthew 9:13; The Textus Receptus says our Lord Jesus Christ came to call sinners "to repentance."

"Matthew 13:51; In the Textus Receptus the disciples here acknowledge Jesus as "Lord."

etc., etc.

 

Do you ignore or avoid the important differences in the twenty to thirty varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus and the even greater number of differences in the Greek New Testament manuscripts on which those TR editions are based? [By greater number of differences I refer to the larger number of differences in the TR's underlying Greek NT manuscripts compared to the number in the varying printed TR editions]. Do you apply the same measures/standards to these differences?

Did Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts have any of the readings that he added to his Greek text by translating from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?
Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. The first two printed TR editions by Erasmus did not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 21:26. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373).

Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza. Concerning 1 Timothy 1:4, Edward F. Hills asserted that Stephanus and “majority of Greek manuscripts” read dispensation of God while Erasmus, Beza, and KJV read godly edifying (KJV Defended, p. 222). At Hebrews 9:1, Edward F. Hill claimed that Stephanus “reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts,” and that the KJV “omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied” (Believing Bible Study, p. 209). One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3).

There are more than a few variants in the Greek NT manuscripts underlying the varying printed Received Text editions, and they are not often noted in the margin of the KJV. There were also textual conjectures introduced into the varying printed TR editions along with some errors introduced by the printers.

 

There's no SCRIPTURALproof they were twins. In fact, your KJV says Eve AGAIN bore, Abel this time. Separate conceptions.

 

Did you read and understand the Hebrew expert I posted?

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

 

lol, rc3, most people knows conceiving and bearing are two different things. The KJV is always right. You can trust your soul on it.

 

Scripture says Eve bore Cain and AGAIN she bore Abel. After she birthed Cain, she said, "With the Lord's help, I have gotten a man" before she had Abel. Nowhere does Scripture say, "She bore Cain and Abel." or that they were twins, such as Jacob & Esau. Hebrew expert or not, your man was still guessing.

 

Yes, the KJV is always right, except where it's not. Simple truth is, Adam caused Abel to be conceived through another act of intercourse with Eve.

 

You do not prove your opinion to be true. Your opinion can be wrong.

There are many varying editions of the KJV so that all of them cannot always be right. Here are a few examples out of hundreds that could be given. All present post-1900 KJV editions are not every word the same.

At Leviticus 17:14, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "ye shall not eat the blood of no manner of flesh" where your present KJV has "ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh."

At 1 Kings 11:5, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong group of people "Amorites" instead of the name of the correct group "Ammonites."

At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" instead of the name of the correct king "Jehoiakim."

At Jeremiah 49:1, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "God" while most KJV editions have "Gad."

The 1769 Oxford along with most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years had the name of the wrong person "Zithri" as the last word of Exodus 6:21.

At Romans 10:7, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "ascend" where most KJV editions have "descend."

At Exodus 20:14, the 1631 London edition of the KJV has "Thou shalt commit adultery."

At Genesis 31:38, over thirty editions of the KJV have the grammatically correct "These twenty years" while most KJV editions have "This twenty years"--a singular "this" with a plural noun "years". "These" is the plural form to be used with a plural noun.

 

If you read his article, you must not have understood it.

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

". . . see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is worded in Genesis 4:1-2.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his brother Abel. (RSV)
Notice that there is only one conception, but two births. . . ."

 

The author got it right about Cain and Abel being twins but that was about all. If there would have been a law against murder then God would have killed Cain. The fact there was no law and men knew right from wrong because of their conscience.

Here is the seriousness of the law;

Nu 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

The Lord is not indifferent about his law.

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

That is the reason God did not order the death of Cain.

 

I believe "again" meant the whole process.

 

No, this is the reason you often get off track. The words of God are always precise. 37818 is right to compare other places in scripture with similar circumstances to determine how to process this information and to make a determination by the likenesses and the differences.

there is safety and instruction in this approach.

 

How you believe. How does your belief prove the evidence false?

 

my belief doesn't-SCRIPTURE does.

 

Scripture doesn't say "She gave birth to Cain and Abel." The description of the birth of Jacob & Esau makes it plain that they were twins.