How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

Comparing the NASB(95) to the KJV, the NASB has "Jesus" in these verses, where the KJV "omitted" his name:

Matt 5:1, Matt 8:24, Matt 9:1, Matt 10:1, Matt 12:48, Matt 13:11, Matt 13:24, Matt 13:52, Matt 15:10, Matt 15:39, Matt 22:34, Matt 24:34, Matt 26:20, Matt 26:45, Mark 1:35, Mark 2:27, Mark 4:38, Mark 6:1, Mark 6:45, Mark 7:24, Mark 9:1, Luke 4:42, Luke 5:16, Luke 5:34, Luke 6:17, Luke 7:15, Luke 8:22, Luke 11:1, Luke 11:27, Luke 18:35, Luke 19:11, Luke 19:40, Luke 19:45, Luke 20:3, Luke 20:3, Luke 20:17, Luke 22:8, Matt 9:10(2nd), Matt 12:10, Matt 12:22, Matt 17:14, Matt 19:3, Matt 20:20, Matt 22:23, Matt 26:16, Mark 1:30, Mark 1:40, Mark 8:22, Mark 10:2, Mark 10:35, Mark 12:18, Luke 8:24, John 4:40, Acts 3:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 18:25, Acts 16:7, Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24, Eph 3:6, Col 4:12, Rom 8:11, Acts 9:20, Acts 9:22, Heb 7:24, Romans 1:4, Jude 1:25, Matt 16:1, John 19:17.

The list from the NIV is even bigger.

 

Please tell me specifically
which Modern Versions do not have
the word "Jesus" in these verses. Failure
to do so will cause you to have wasted your
time puting your statement in this thread.
BTW, you wasted my time puting it there.
I have to account to God for every idle moment
of the time God gave me. You do also. Please
don't bother to tell me that thus and so
does not appear in a MV without specifying the
MV you are talking about. I've been told
by the Lord to check every scripture verse
that is put before me or if just the address
is put before me. Please don't waste God's
valuable time by quoting heresay you haven't
checked out. Thank you.

 

- Matt 4:12 does have Jesus in MVs, at least in the ones I checked
- Matt 6:33 doesn't, not even in the KJV
- Matt 8:29 and 15:30 are a valid issue, due to a textual variation

Did you look up the verses yourself before posting them? Only half of them have the difference you mention.

 

Where did you find those stats. In the search I did in the KJV it only found "Lord Jesus Christ" 81 times. Does that mean the KJV is missing it 119 times? </font>[/QUOTE]For example: Matthew 4:12; 6:33, 8:29; 15:30 have "Jesus." Modern versions omitted "Jesus." The KJV has "Jesus" on these verses. </font>[/QUOTE]My error! I overlooked names. I correct my error.

Matthew 4:12 Jesus

Matthew 6:33 God

Matthew 8:29 Jesus

Matthew 15:30 Jesus'

 

NASB (1960's) omitted Jesus.

Why did you favor NASB(95) having "Jesus" instead of NASB(60's) because of NASB95 agreeing with the KJV?

 

Write a short paragraph explaining pronouns.

Did you kow that most modern versions use
a capitialized pronoun that referrs to
the 3 members of the Blessed Trinity?


Matthew 4:12 (HCSB):
But after He heard that John
had been arrested, He withdrew into Galilee.

The referrent for "He" is clearly
"Jesus" in Matthew 4:10 (and not Satan
also in Matthew 4:10).

 

Unless I am wrong, the majority text, the critical text AND the TR do NOT have the name "Jesus" in the original Greek.

Care to elaborate where it might have come from? (Vulgate maybe?)

 

God said, "He." The Greek text said, "He" The KJV said "He" Why did NASB changed from "He" to "Jesus"? When God said, "He", will you change the word out of God's mouth?

 

SOME Greek manuscripts said "He". Others said "Jesus". Why did some "omit" his holy name? And why do you keep changing the topic? I'm still ready to post that reply about Westcott and Genesis.

 

Matthew 4:12 (The Latin Vulgate):

cum autem audisset quod Iohannes traditus
esset secessit in Galilaeam

No word "Jesus" there.

 

Are you ready? What does this quotation from him mean to you?

 

Askjo,

Are you that dishonest? As a brother in the Lord I'm asking you to correct yourself and answer natters questions.

You posted a lie about Westcott and I have yet to see you correct your mistake. Is it a mistake or not? The error in oyur post about Westcott was corrected by another brother and I have yet to see you correct yourself.

 

Are you ready? What does this quotation from him mean to you? </font>[/QUOTE]There are about 100 places on the Web where you
can find:

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

This was found at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unboundscriptures.html
This person used to post here. IMO his quotes should
be doublechecked before assuming they are correct.
I don't have a copy of LIFE OF WESTCOTT to check the
quote.

Askjo (top of page 5):
"Natters, you defend ... the Word of God.

See, what kind of skill does it take to misquote?
All it takes is a lack of ethics.

Please specify the source of your quote.
If perchance, it is from the LIFE OF WESTCOTT,
we will deal with that. I personally think
the breaking the rules of debate especailly debate
among Christians is more likely here good
scholarship.

 

There are about 100 places on the Web where you
can find this "quote" of Westcott

1. Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

This was found at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unboundscriptures.html

2. "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."2

was found at:
http://www.patriotist.com/rparch/rp20010910.htm

Notice that #1 might be an actual quote.
But #2 eliminates the elipsis and "for example".

another place shows the quote from:
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss
Westcott, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 69.

at:
http://www.bbaptist.org/which_version.pdf

ANd here is your frinedly Adventist site:
WESTCOTT writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament Criticism, March 4, A.D. 1890:

“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did.” [32]


at: http://www.adventist4truth.com/index2.php?WilkinsonPages=wilkinson-09


104 web sources checked.
None of them quoted Westcott properly
all of them were KJVO sites

Strange that there are three different
versions of the quote. Apparently not
only does scholarship seem to be lacking
among the KJVOs, they can't even type

 

NASB (1960's) omitted Jesus.

Why did you favor NASB(95) having "Jesus" instead of NASB(60's) because of NASB95 agreeing with the KJV? </font>[/QUOTE]Seems to me like you make all inclusive statements and have not done any research to back your claims. All I did was to start off with the first verse you gave.

I mostly use a Greek text but just happen to have my NASU 95 handy. It is a newer translation than the NASB. But just the same, the context certainly tells who is speaking.

I just did a dearch on the following:

Jesus is used in the Bible:
NIV - 1226
NASU 95 - 948
KJV - 942

God is used:
KJV - 3893
NASU - 3850
NIV - 3507

Holy Spirit is used:
NIV - 93
NASU - 92
KJV - 7

What happened to the Holy Spirit in the KJV?

However the KJV does mention a Holy Ghost. Is that kind of like Casper? Halloween? Certainly would seem to comply with how many in the Anglican, baby baptizing church would live today.

 

SCHOLARSHIP! That has nothing to do with scholarship. It has everything to do with integrity. I have seen that kind of integrity in the business world by those same kind of church going folks.

 

Much has been made as to some sayings of Wescott and Hort.

While the following is not exactly a book review it is a review of official Church of England doctrine, that is The 39 Articles of Religion:

"Young Children" includes infants, therefore the Church of England believes in baptismal regeneration because when it is received, those who receive it are "grafted into the Church" and their "adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed".

So which is worse askjo? the Wescott and Hort statements or the baptismal regeneration of King James, his Church his "Bishops" and his translators?

HankD

 

Askjo, Please answer my post. What does it mean to you when someone dishonestly quotes someone's words out of context or copies someone else who has done it then refuses to repent and stop?

Even if Westcott were the most godless man in history you would not be justified in intentionally misquoting him in order to assassinate his character.

The issue is no longer whether Westcott had errant views or not but rather whether you are being honest about his views. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, you know the difference between the KJV/TR onlyists and W-H/MV onlyists concerning Westcott. Most W-H/MV onlyists believe that Westcott was a Christian. Most KJV/TR onlyists believe that Westcott was not a Christian. Why did they disagree each other concerning him? </font>[/QUOTE]Whether he was a Christian or not has absolutely nothing to do with using quotes out of context from him. That is dishonesty on your part and/or whoever you are getting information from.

He was an Anglican like the KJV translators. Very similar in theology though maybe a little less romish.

I don't think his scholarship nor that of the KJV translators is automatically disqualified by their doctrinal errors. Do you? Do you want to make doctrinal error a disqualifier for determining reliable texts and translations?

If so, consider Erasmus the Catholic and the KJV translators who weren't fully reformed and who also persecuted Baptists.

NOW, back to the focus. If Westcott was the most deviant pagan who ever lived, do you think that justifies your being dishonest when citing quotes from him?

 

James R. White is not scholarly to say, "inspired authors" because NOWHERE in the Bible said God inspired authors instead of His Words. </font>[/QUOTE]Except that pseky little thing Peter wrote about men being moved by the Holy Spirit. That is a reference to the inspiring work of God on the men themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]"Move" does not mean "inspired." </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, it does. It is the same theological concept. It means to be "borne along" such as a boat would be borne along by the wind. It is inspiration.

 

Some examples are for you to read here:

A Christian man said, "The homosexuality is ok"

What does this quotation from him mean to you?

A preacher said, "Smoking pot, drinking beer and porn are ok."

What does this quotation from him mean to you?

A Sunday School teacher said, "I do not believe in the book of Genesis."

What does this quotation from mean to you?

Burgon was an Anglican as likewise as Westcott was. Tell me, WHY Burgon disagreed with Westcott concerning the Word of God?