Answer your belief on the KJV

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I think the verse refers to both - as both are the Word of God.

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?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I think the verse refers to both - as both are the Word of God.

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%.

 

[LarryN]

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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Since we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew MSS, we'll never know if it agrees 100%.

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?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Since we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew MSS, we'll never know if it agrees 100%.

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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
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?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
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?</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that, timothy1769 said,"...both are the word of God." I added, "in the King James Bible."

[qb]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?

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

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
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?</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that, timothy1769 said,"...both are the word of God." I added, "in the King James Bible."

[qb]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?

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.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
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.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

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. </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.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

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...

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Please answer the question about the KJV -- Which do you believe? Please explain why you believe it.

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

 

[TC]

originally posted by Archangel7

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HomeBound:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Archangel7:

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Originally posted by tinytim:
I'd be afraid that God just might take my part from the Tree of Life.

S&T:

TT, I was wondering if this is the scripture that you were referring to:

Revelation 22

19 And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and of the things having been written in this Book.

.....................
.....................
I do find tree used here:


Revelation 22

14 Blessed are the ones doing His commands, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and by the gates they may enter into the city.


I think I will stay with book.

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.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

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?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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... </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?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by TC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
originally posted by Archangel7

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.

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?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:

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?

"Because "tree of life" is the true reading of Rev. 22:19. The reading "book of life" is not found in any Greek manuscript of Revelation prior to Erasmus. The reading "book of life" shows up exclusively in Western Latin manuscripts and Fathers (and manuscripts later influenced by them) because of a scribal error in the transmission of the text. The Latin word for "tree" is ligno, which some scribe mis-copied as libro, the Latin word for "book." This corruption was made official in the Vulgate, which Erasmus back-translated from Latin into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation in his TR because his sole Greek copy of Revelation lacked those verses. The pedigree of the error is clearly traceable through the Old Latin to the Vulgate to the TR to the KJV.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

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.