What is lacking?

Actually it can't. Language can only have one meaning. It is univocal. To attach more than one meaning to the same set of words in the same context is to destroy the possibility of rational communication.

However, that is not even the biggest problem. The text very clearly defines what it is talking about. Accept it and move on.

 

There is "no text" in these verses because there is very questionable manuscript support. Most likely, the "text" in these verses was added in over the generations rather than deleted. This can be demonstrated by looking at the evidence.

But it proves from Scripture that the Holy Scriptures are not solely the KJV, as some on here would have us believe. People wanted a verse of Scripture. I gave it.

I don't either. I think the evidence in those cases leads to a high probability that, as doctrinally correct as those verses may be, they were added in by later copiers. The evidence for this supposition is found in various techinical commentaries and a work like Metzger's Textual Commentary on the NT (currently in its 2nd edition). It gives the various evidence for the disputed readings and discusses the probabilities for them. It is worth having to answer a lot of hte questions that many people have ... or at least should have.

And I gave a clear answer.

I am glad you brought it up because it presents a huge problem for you. As you probably know, the KJV has been changed numerous times in the past 400 years and the two main additions (Cambridge and Oxford) are not the same. The KJV was obviously lackign something, as evidenced by the changes it went through. Now you would have us believe that the current edition is teh right one and in so doing you would deny the "unlacking" word of God to all previous generations. In fact, you would deny it to the one who uses the opposite edition that you have. Will you fact that truth and give us a reasonable explanation for how the "unlackign word of God" took over 300 years to get it to its current condition? Will you also explain why it still has problems in its translation for the modern reader?

Who are these?

Pastor Bob, Here is another quote that you previously thought no one held. This is a statement of such amazing problems that it is remarkable that someone publicly states it. It singlehandedly denies the biblical doctrine of inspiration since Paul (who wrote something different than the KJV) thought he was writing the perfect word of God. It denies the existence of God's complete word at any time up till now.

It lacks a proper translation of a simple Greek word in Heb 10:23 and some other places. It lacks conformity to the vast majority of manuscripts in 1 John 5:7. It lacks clarity to modern reader in 2 Thess 2 and 1 Thess 4 where it uses the ancient meaning of a word that has a completely different meaning today. Most of all, it lacks a clear readable sentence structure for the modern reader.

 

The Apocrypha.

The original 1611 edition of the perfect KJV contained the Apocrypha. Modern editions do not.

Why?

HankD

 

I tell you what, If you can show me the originals then I will listen to your ramblings;problem is they are not available..Psalms 12:6-7 has everything to do with bible preservation;that is if you are a bible believer..

 

I'm sorry but are incorrect.. The "Apocrapha" is,however, part of the canon in the North African Vatican-Roman catholic texts That ALL(1880 on) Alexandrian corruptions hail from......

[ December 24, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Bob,
I AM IMPRESSED!!!!
Carry on soldier!
Swordsman

 

Bob,

I did not change my position, nor misstate. My position has been well known for over 4000 posts. It has never changed. As the fundamentalists have always held, and as the KJV translators said, There is no perfect translation; there never has been; there never will be. There are differences because the text has not been perfectly preserved. I trust the text of the KJV. Its doctrine and teaching is true. It, like other texts, have some issues that must be thought through with discernment and biblical doctrine. Mistranslations and adding of verses and words (no matter how correct) should be corrected from the translation. Such correction does not make one a Bible corrector. It makes one a Bible believer who is unwilling to allow his faith to be corrupted by what men have said.

However, as a slight and obvious correction to your post, thou does not speak the language of the KJV anymore. Thou hast never spoken it in your life save your reading of Bible. You are simply misleading people when you say that you do. You do not use "let" when you mean "restrain." You do not use "prevent" when you mean "precede." You do not use words like "holpen," "wot," etc. These things are patently obvious to those who read your posts. They are no more written in teh language of the KJV (sentence structure and vocabulary) than the man on the moon. You know that, of course. I am not telling anyone anything they don't know.

Your so called objections to modern versions have been soundly answered in many places, including this forum. They do not stand up. John 7:8 is not a lie by Christ; Micah 5:2 does not teach that God or Christ had origins. These are lies propogated by those who 1) haven't studied it or 2) have an agenda to mislead people. Either way it is detrimental to Scriptural truth. I believe most people, like yourself, are in category (1). They have been told somethign along the way that sounded really good. They never stopped to actually study it. They just repeated it. And so and so on until it is accepted as gospel truth though it is in direct contradiction to the word of God. It is truly a dangerous place to be. My encouragement remains, as always, to study the Word.

I think the bigger issue is, Do we hold to the biblical doctrine of inspiration or do we be KJOnly? There is no middle ground. The KJOnly position is unbiblical. To prefer the KJV is not; to believe that the KJV is the best English translation is not. To say that no other version is the word of God is. The KJV is an excellent version for those who like it. But do not tell us that it is the only version or that other versions are perversions. That is an old tired argument that has been exposed. Let's move past this discussion. If you want to talk about a specific passage, such as one of the ones you mentioned above, start a thread. You can take your side; we will take our side. We will present the arguments and resolve it that way.

 

Hey you King James Bible Believers keep hammering away. Thes same guys jump all over the KING JAMES BIBLE all over this board and they are taking a beating with the truth.When they get defeated they quit and go to another thread.
As for a bible in your language how about the NIV?
Gen. 6:4 NIV "The Nephilim were on the earth...
Gen.6:4 KJV "There were giants in the earth..
Be honest guys that is not easier to understand or more modern english.
I gave these guys documented evidence in the last two days about the wickedness behind moder versions and they won't accept it. You KJV guys show them what a Bible Believer is made of .
I'll be back !!!!!!!!!!!

 

There you have it folks!!!A honest to goodness bible rejecting Apostate Fundalmentalist;God is not able [AT ALL]to preserve his word,WOW!!!what a revelation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why bother?? you just said there is no perfect translation:remember??

Oh, Really?? How??(Prov 12:15)

What bible?? you said no bible is trustworthy;what a statement!!!(James 1:8)

Faith in WHAT????

Whoa!!!! like telling them there is no bible right??(James 1:8)

See MAtt 23:24 for more details!!!

Ah, so, you admit that Alexandrians think that KJV users/believers are unlearned dolts,right???

What word ???remember???

Uh,yeah.. but being a bible rejector is???Matt 23:24!!

Yes I believe you allready have proven that (see first statment)..

Well, there you have it folks!!! Matt 7:20

[ December 24, 2002, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

There is no one jumping all over the KJV here, at least not that I have seen.

Nephilim is a transliteration because we are not sure what it means. "Giants" means that the translators entered into interpretation rather than translation.

I haven't seen this evidence. Where have you posted it? So far you have posted nothing that hasn't been soundly refuted from Scripture. Perhaps I missed a post somewhere. (Of course I didn't. You simply have not offered any proof.)

You haven't shown one verse where God identifies the KJV as the only word of God. You have offered many opinions of man. But I am utterly unpersuaded because of the amount of mistruths and misrepresentations involved in them. I remain skeptical of points that cannot be proven from Scripture.

 

Did you notice how you changed my words?? I said nothing about God’s ability to do something. We are discussing whether or not he did something, not whether or not he is able to. It is wrong to misrepresent what people say. I don’t have much patience for it. It is completely wrong and unethical to misrepresent your opponent no matter how much you disagree with him.

Here you did it again. I did not say that no Bible was trustworthy. You fabricated that to make your own point. Why won’t you be honest and deal with the facts. You cite James 1:8 but I fail to see the relevance. I am not double minded; I am not unstable. You cite Prov 12:15 but I fail to see how that applies to me. I have not set my own mind up as the standard. I have accepted the word of God as the standard. The evidence is that I have not become persuaded by something that cannot be supported from Scripture. As soon as you can show me that Scripture dictates I use only the KJV, then I will do it. Until then, it is not a word from God; it is a word from man.

Interesting that you cite this one. It was some kind of Freudian slip because it is one of the clear translational errors of the KJV. The word translated “strain at” really means “strain out.” Your post gave me the opportunity to show you an error in the KJV. Get out your Greek lexicon and look the word up. It means to strain out, as in using a filter. It is not to strain at, as in trying to reach something. Every version has corrected this and every lexical source is in agreement. It is a minor point that will not cost anyone their salvation, but it is a problem that should be corrected.

No I didn’t say that. I said that I believe most are mislead and have not studied the issue. Your responses confirm this to me.

I notice how you have not really dealt with any Scripture to support your side. Why? Do you not have any Scripture that supports the KJOnly position? I have supported my position from Scripture, time and time again. Where is the substance of your position? You cannot offer any proof whatsoever from Scripture. All you have is the opinions of man. Why is that good enough for you?

Why will you not answer questions? I have spent all kinds of time in here trying to lovingly help people see the truth that is keeping them from getting God’s word in the language we speak. I am roundly ripped by people who will not answer questions, who indeed will not even make an attempt at answering questions.

 

honest to goodness bible rejecting Apostate Fundalmentalist Quote
Praise God for a guy that isn't afraid to take a stand for the word of God!
Be honest Larry you can prove nothing as I showed on the other thread and it is still active for anyone who wants to see it.
The heading it is under is translator question
Larry finds himself as does Brian as the only final authority in all matters of scripture and if you give them proof they say it is not true.If I come back here and find that type of stuff going on I will bring all of the evidence to this thread. Until then you KJV guys SICK EM!!!

 

Here is another KJV only person checking in. In response to those defending the NIV who say the gospel is the same. Is it. Explain to me please how a person who is redeemed can be a son of God when according to the NIV in John 3:16 Jesus is God's one and only Son. Where does that leave us what do we become when we are redeemed. I don;t know about you but praise God Jesus is God's only begotten and that leaves room for me to be his adopted son.

 

I praise God that Jesus wasn't begotten because that would mean he wasn't God. God did not come into existence. He has always been. Jesus was not begotten; he has always been.

The word is monogenes and it means unique or one of a kind. Jesus is "one of a kind." There is none like him, not even you in your adopted sonship. You are reaching to great depths to prove a point that cannot be proven. The NIV is right as evidenced by the KJV translation of monogenes in other places. Get out your Greek concordance and look up the word monogenes and then find out how the KJV translated it. You will find that they agree with the NIV. Study would have prevented you from making this mistake.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so driven by agendas that they fail to see the reality of translations. It is sad to see the precious word of God handled in such a cavalier manner. It can only grieve the heart of God to see people here trying to take the word of God away from people.

 

I would like to see this. So far, I have proven everything you have asked. I have shown you errors of translation in the KJV; I have shown you undeniable proof that things other than the KJV can be called the word of God and were called such by none other than Christ, Paul, Peter, the OT prophets and other writers of Scripture. Your problem is not with my proof. It is with your unwillingness to accept what Scripture says.

Bring the evidence please. I have never one time set myself up as the final authority. I have accepted what God said. It is you who have set yourself up as the final authority. I have shown you clear passages of Scripture that refute your position. Yet you will not submit your mind to Scripture. You insist that your thinking is right, no matter what is shown from Scripture. You even said that the quotation of Scripture was getting tired to you. That is an amazing statement from someone who claims to hold Scripture as the final authority.

Steve, your issue is authority. YOu will not accept Scripture. You accept the teachings of men who contradict Scripture. There are serious problems which you apparently are not willing to face. You need to love Scripture more than you love your own mind and those who have taught you.

 

There is none so blind as he who will not see!!

Now you decide which side I'm referring to? And don't be too quick to say "NOT ME"; these things have a way of coming back to bite you sometimes!