Answer your belief on the KJV

Amen! I agree. </font>[/QUOTE]You do? But the KJV doesn't match the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts 100%. Can you explain how you agree despite this fact?

 

Amen! I agree. </font>[/QUOTE]You do? But the KJV doesn't match the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts 100%. Can you explain how you agree despite this fact? </font>[/QUOTE]Since we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew MSS, we'll never know if it agrees 100%.

 

Originally posted by Homebound:

"Since we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew MSS, we'll never know if it (the KJV- ed.) agrees 100%."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, since we also don't have the KJV Translator's original documents & manuscripts (they've been lost): There's no ultimate frame of reference to compare our printed editions of the KJV to, when differences in the printed copies have existed & exist.

There's a recent thread entitled "KJV Translator's Work Lost" that addresses this matter in greater detail.

 

No, that's not what I'm talking about. You said you agree that the passage is talking about both: the KJV and the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. If it is talking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, then they too are *preserved*. Yet none match the KJV, so I'm trying to understand your answer. Can you explain?

 

No, that's not what I'm talking about. You said you agree that the passage is talking about both: the KJV and the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. If it is talking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, then they too are *preserved*. Yet none match the KJV, so I'm trying to understand your answer. Can you explain? </font>[/QUOTE]As timothy1769 said, they both are the word of God preserved in the King James Bible.

 

I'm not sure that's what Timothy1769 said. Tim, can you clarify?

Homebound, there are no Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in the KJV. How then are the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts preserved, if the KJV differs from even the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts the KJV translators used?

 

I'm not sure that's what Timothy1769 said. Tim, can you clarify?</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that, timothy1769 said,"...both are the word of God." I added, "in the King James Bible."

Since I don't know H/G, I don't know where they differ. Maybe you can give an example of the difference?

The sc

 

I'm not sure that's what Timothy1769 said. Tim, can you clarify?</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that, timothy1769 said,"...both are the word of God." I added, "in the King James Bible."

Since I don't know H/G, I don't know where they differ. Maybe you can give an example of the difference?</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly. Consider Rom. 11:4, in which *every* Greek MS in existence reads "who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Yet the KJV reads "who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." The KJV differs from the Greek text. The KJV adds words not found in the Greek text.

 

Yes, weren't the KJB translators nice enough to put "the image of" in italics, showing that these words were not in the available manuscripts. Thanks KJB translators for you honesty.

 

Yes, exactly - so how is the Greek "preserved" then?

Also, I know of no Greek manuscript that has "teeth" in Matt 27:44.

 

Yes, weren't the KJB translators nice enough to put "the image of" in italics, showing that these words were not in the available manuscripts. Thanks KJB translators for you honesty. </font>[/QUOTE]Why did they put those italicized words in at all? They are neither present in nor implied by the Greek text. Clearly they are unwarranted additions to the word of God.

 

Ok.Why dont you hold that same silly standard to all modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)that do the same thing??? At least the KJB translators were honest enough to show them...

 

#3 God promised to preserve the people of verses 1-5.

 

The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words.

 

Question: What does it matter? Name out of the book of life, or your part taken from the tree of life. Both convey the same message, "If you mess with my word, You won't go to Heaven." And taking verses out of context to prove a point is definately messing with God's word.

(Just wondering what to do with eternal security in this situation. Hmm sounds like the Catholic teaching of works salvation. I wonder if this verse is found in the Latin Vulgate.)
Of course, that's where Erasmus found it!!

ps. I too love the KJV. Memorized it, preach it, wouldn't trade it for the world. I just don't worship it. As a youth Pastor, I can't get used to kids memorizing all the other translations. That's why I carry a parallel. KJV, NIV, NLT, and NASB.

 

TT said:

ps. I too love the KJV. Memorized it, preach it, wouldn't trade it for the world. I just don't worship it. As a youth Pastor, I can't get used to kids memorizing all the other translations. That's why I carry a parallel. KJV, NIV, NLT, and NASB.

S&T:

Once again, I am not KJVO. I have many bibles that I use for comparison. My point is that your name can not be written in a tree. Book is used in the majority of phrases. Why did they switch to tree in that version?

 

Ok.Why dont you hold that same silly standard to all modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)that do the same thing??? At least the KJB translators were honest enough to show them... </font>[/QUOTE]I do. Where *any* version has unwarranted additions to the word of God, they should be pointed out.

However, the original question which led to this discussion was whether or not the text of the KJV departs from the Greek text from which it was translated. In Rom. 11:4 it clearly does. Which raises another question -- how can the KJV be the "pure, perfect, preserved" word of God when its translators *added* words neither found nor implied in the original Greek text?

 

The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words. </font>[/QUOTE]That was the normal practice of the KJV translators, and in the majority of cases the italicized words are legitimate. However, Rom. 11:4 makes perfect sense *without* the words added by the KJV translators (as just about every other English translation before and after 1611 amply illustrates). So why did the KJV translators *add* unnecessary words to the word of God?

 

AA stated:

The Latin word for "tree" is ligno, which some scribe mis-copied as libro, the Latin word for "book."

S&T:
I guess that this is just another case of God not being able to preserve His word. I guess that also means that contrary to what He stated in scripture, He really is a respecter of persons. I wonder how many people will end up in hell because they didn't have the "superior" translation that you are referring to. Gnostic doctrine has ruined many a civilization. Nothing new under the sun.