Search results

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

Majority Text. Byzantine Text and Family 35 are 98 & 1/2 % alike.

I really liked the New American Standard Bible. But they should update to the Greek Byzantine Text. They would have had the best translation based on quite possibly the best Greek Text.

You are blaming all that on a Bible translation? Pretty sure those Pentecostals were using KJVs.

This collection of various readings in the margin distinguished Estienne's third edition as the first Greek text with a critical apparatus, and greatly enhanced the reputation of the text. It was thought by many that Estienne had edited his text directly from these manuscripts, and indeed...

No they do not . That is false witness. Mark the person who told you that as unreliable.

Isn't Iran the last on the list of nations to invade? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan , Lebanon, Iran? Remember Gen Wesly Clark revealed to the press the Bush Administrations list of 7 nations to be invaded in 5 years? This conflict with Iran was planned long ago. And since we are getting...

The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus just like the KJV is. It has some Majority Text readings in the footnotes when they differ, as well as Critical Text footnotes when they differ.

Tyndale 1534 facsimile. This Jesus Christ cam by water and blood. And it is the sprete that beareth witness / because the sprete ys truth. (for there are thre which beare recorde in heaven / the father / the word / and the holy goost. And these thre are one) for there are thre which beare...

So then when all of these agree , which is the overwhelming majority of the time, we have undisputed the Original Text. It is only when there is a serious Variant , that there is any doubt. Which rarely, but does occasionally happen.

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version