Search results

Excellent videos that are not long.

So what do you do when the New Covenant quotes the Old Covenant and the New Covenant matches the Septuagint, or comes closer than the Hebrew Old Covenant reading? Sometimes the Old Covenant reading in the KJV is the one that is mistaken.

The Septuagint is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible in the 3rd century BC. You can read about it in the 1611 KJV Preface under the section called The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek The Translators to the Reader Many times the NT quotes directly from the...

Fair enough. And now you are saying different. The New Testament Authors quote an Old Testament that is sometimes different than the one that has come down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament Authors usually quote from the Septuagint or a Hebrew manuscript more like the Septuagint...

says the Lord God. Sinaiticus A C P 046 91 93 469 792 911 922 1006 1424 1611 1678 1734 1828 1841 1854 1888 2053 2062 2065 270 2080 2081 2351 2814 2846 it/h vg syr cop arm-m geo arab-e,w Ath MarcD Epiph EustA Prim TR-cp, ben, Ste/mg An HF BG RP SBL TH ECM NA28 says the Lord it/ar eth arm-c TR

When a New Testament Author quotes the Old Testament he usually quotes it in a different form that has came down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament quotation of the Old is the correct reading. Paul did not get it wrong. Jesus did not get it wrong. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did...

You may be right, each has a voice in the matter. For my purposes 1769 I had thought the last major edition. But there may have been others that I am not familiar with. If an edition, corrects errors in the New Testament, I would consider it important, even if it only corrected one reading.

If King James did not want the Apocrypha, why was it included in all Major Editions? If he did not want it to be included, it would have not been in the 1611 or in any edition while he was alive. I said nothing about collusion of Scanners. Just they no doubt did not scan them in. You wouldn't...

Interesting printing facts about the History of the KJV. 1611 and afterwards. https://greatsite.com/the-1611-king-james-bible/

Your word is no good compared to those that have the bibles and sells them. You look at old photo scans that simply may not have scanned them. You would have no way of knowing. The scanner may have simply not scanned them. The scanner may be like you and are embarrassed that the real KJV came...

Remember, this site sells 1611, 1612, so on and so forth Bibles for a lot of money. They have the ancient Bibles on hand , so they know what they are talking about. Lost Books of The KJV Bible? Finally, there was one last change made to the King James Version Bible in 1885: the removal of 14...

This is from Great site below. The Apocrypha wasn't removed from KJV Bibles until much later than you had said. https://greatsite.com/english-bible-history/ The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha...

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has...

Yes they are major editions, and I am also sure they were included in those editions. See Logos 1560's post on the issue. Post #15 on this thread.

Actually they were printed inside the Testaments. Right smack in-between the two. In the Middle. Old Testament. Apocrypha. New Testament. And the Apocrypha were in the major KJV Printed editions even as late as 1779.

But accurate copies retain the inspired Originals. True there are no perfect copies , but there are many accurate ones. But the ones that are correct do preserve the Originals. For instance John 1:1-17.

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2025/07/byzantine-friendly-new-testaments-in.html

You could certainly be correct here. There are no committee Byzantine translations that I am aware of. I like all Byzantine New Testaments that I have seen though. https://archive.org/details/tcent

The NASB is a committee Version. The World English Bible may be from one or only a few Translators. Very excellent, but not a committee Version. Of course William Tyndale was the best Translator in English . So I do not have anything against one man translations.

A good version. 2 thumbs up