Search results

Based on his statement, it seems most likely he had a Bible without the Apocrypha included. If you look at the translation effort for the KJV, King James didn't have any say. The translators often didn't even follow the rules the King set. How do you know what I would or wouldn't do? Please, do...

Don't presume to know how I feel. I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I'm glad they translated the Apocrypha, I OWN a copy of it. It's a great resource to study, and it's good for one can realize why they aren't Scripture. Additionally, I find it highly improbable that the tens of...

Baptism is just a transliteration of the Greek. Thus, the question you're really asking is whether the Greek supports immersion only—which I believe the Bible teaches Baptism by immersion.

This us ignorant. King James did not find them "important." In fact, he himself states that he OMITTED THEM! "And as to the Apocryphe bookes, I omit them, because I am no Papist. As I said before; and indeed some of them are no wayes like the dytement of the Spirit of God." King James I, in...

That would require there to be errors in the KJV. However, there aren't any, and no one has actually been able to provide one. Simply all the "errors" are either 1) not errors or 2) are actually superior translations.

Perhaps it would do you well to go through photoscans of various KJV's. It was a lot of work, but I have gone through many, ranging from 1638 into the 1800's, finding KJV's without the Apocrypha. My objection to them is based on the preservation promises of the Bible, as well as contradictions...

You're limiting your scope to one single passage. I'm not even completely convinced that the different Greek words have that big of a meaning difference, but as I've mentioned and will mention again, I do not know Greek. If you take the Greek words and look at how they're translated throughout...

I think that this is actually wrong. I'm no Greek expert (as I've said multiple times), but one can look up the Greek words and see how the KJV translates them—it uses more than just one single word. There was a Baptist Bible publish in the 1800's that changed Baptism to immersing, but it never...

See, it wasn't hard to provide citations. I don't get why you had to go off on irrelevant data. I will have to look at the Scrivener quote some more and consider.

So we're talking about the Apocrypha, and you stated David Norton mentioned it being in the 1629, but there's nothing here that hints towards it having actually been in it. From 1638 onward, I've actually looked at photoscans of different editions of the KJV. I get the 1629 information from Dr...

No offense, but I didn't ask for a lecture on the 1769. Those are foolish statements from those men, but I use the Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV as I believe it most properly reflects what the translators' work is when you remove the typographical errors.

"In 1629, a revision was produced by [C]ambridge University. Dr. Samuel Ward and Dean John Bois, from the original 1611 translating committee, were involved in this revision. It is the 1629 revision that dropped the Apocrypha from its position between the testaments of Scripture." Stringer, Dr...

I am not a Greek expert (as I've already stated), so I will not try and argue this. But I do think it's a bit of a double standard to accuse English itself to be flawed. Let's pretend for a moment that God had inspired His Word in English rather than Greek. I assume you have used the reverse of...

I am not Catholic. I am simply stating that the KJV, just like Luther's German translation and other such Protestant Bibles, placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments to denote they didn't believe it was Scripture. I don't have to worry about that—I'm not Catholic. I have notes from when I've...

I can't tell if you mean the KJV is based on an English text, thus it's flawed, or exactly what you mean. But assuming you are, the KJV compared the Bishops' Bible (which it was based upon) with the Greek and Hebrew texts they had, and then either corrected the Bishops' Bible or left it as is...

And yet this is a common Protestant way of denoting the Apocrypha wasn't Scripture. The KJV clearly marked the Apocrypha as separate from the Testaments, and all the per-page headers simply said "Apocrypha." Are 1629 and 1638 not major editions? "King Charles the First, in 1638, had another...

Yes. They are the ultimate standard. I've yet to find a place where the KJV does not get it right, but I do believe new translations (i.e., foreign work) should be from the Greek and Hebrew, not from the KJV. I don't believe that is how it should be phrased. Obviously it's not possible for...

Thank you, sir.

Hello there. I am a Baptist Christian. I hold to Free Grace and I believe the Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text to be God's preserved Word. I hope we can get along fine and have edifying conversations. God bless!