I wanna bang my head

[Logos1560]

Would someone please address this, and explain your "logic" in believing two DIFFERENT things can both be the same:

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] which the KJV translators stated were "the word of God" "notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." The KJV translators knew that all those pre-1611 English Bibles were not the same in all their renderings and even that they had some textual differences, but yet they suggested that they were all equally the word of God in English. That did not mean that they were all equally accurate in every rendering of every word of the original language texts, but they were all equally translations of Scripture.

The KJV translators indicated that no translations [which would include their own] could be perfect and they yet suggested that those imperfect translations were still the word of God.

There were the same type differences between those earlier English Bibles and the KJV as between the KJV and later English translations. If simply compared to the KJV, those earlier English Bibles that were "the word of God" in English according to the KJV translators had many added words or many omitted words [including phrases, clauses, and whole verses]. Several of those early English Bibles did not have two whole verses that are found in the KJV, and yet the KJV translators asserted that they were the word of God. The Great Bible had over 100 words in the book of Psalms [including three whole verses in one psalm] not found in the KJV and also over 100 words in the book of Acts not found in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible had a good number of words and phrases that are not found in the KJV.

If it is claimed that those earlier English Bibles were not the word of God because they are not the same as the KJV, then when the KJV translators borrowed words, phrases, and even whole verses from them, they were taking what was not the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

The printed original language texts from which the KJV was translated were based on original language manuscripts that had copying errors, including sometimes omitted words and phrases. Is it being suggested that the correctly copied parts of those manuscripts were not the word of God if any copying errors were included in them?

In addition, the same original language words and phrases in the original language texts are translated different ways in the KJV so is that supposed to mean that those different renderings in the KJV that are not the same are not the word of God?

The KJV sometimes added words or phrases for which there is no original language words and sometimes did not give any English word for some original language word. All those added words are not in italics. Thus, if translating differently the same original language words means that it is not the same, than all the KJV could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

Is translating the same original language words differently and not the same OK when in the KJV but wrong when in other translations?

Even all the 200 or more varying editions of the KJV are not the same.

 

[JonC]

If you want to go back to the early 80’s, I have the perfect music for “banging your head.”

 

[Mexdeaf]

Would someone please address this, and explain your "logic" in believing two DIFFERENT things can both be the same:




Thank you. I'll await someone's response................:BangHead:

When you tell us which KJV is perfect, your question will be answered.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If God Himself told you He preserved ONE book, none of you KJV critics would believe it.

Because there are no scriptures to back it up. As another poster is so fond of saying- "It's a MAN-MADE theory!"

And if God only preserved it in one language- He would then be a 'respecter of persons', would He not?

 

[Baptist4life]

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] which the KJV translators stated were "the word of God" "notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." The KJV translators knew that all those pre-1611 English Bibles were not the same in all their renderings and even that they had some textual differences, but yet they suggested that they were all equally the word of God in English. That did not mean that they were all equally accurate in every rendering of every word of the original language texts, but they were all equally translations of Scripture.

The KJV translators indicated that no translations [which would include their own] could be perfect and they yet suggested that those imperfect translations were still the word of God.

There were the same type differences between those earlier English Bibles and the KJV as between the KJV and later English translations. If simply compared to the KJV, those earlier English Bibles that were "the word of God" in English according to the KJV translators had many added words or many omitted words [including phrases, clauses, and whole verses]. Several of those early English Bibles did not have two whole verses that are found in the KJV, and yet the KJV translators asserted that they were the word of God. The Great Bible had over 100 words in the book of Psalms [including three whole verses in one psalm] not found in the KJV and also over 100 words in the book of Acts not found in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible had a good number of words and phrases that are not found in the KJV.

If it is claimed that those earlier English Bibles were not the word of God because they are not the same as the KJV, then when the KJV translators borrowed words, phrases, and even whole verses from them, they were taking what was not the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

The printed original language texts from which the KJV was translated were based on original language manuscripts that had copying errors, including sometimes omitted words and phrases. Is it being suggested that the correctly copied parts of those manuscripts were not the word of God if any copying errors were included in them?

In addition, the same original language words and phrases in the original language texts are translated different ways in the KJV so is that supposed to mean that those different renderings in the KJV that are not the same are not the word of God?

The KJV sometimes added words or phrases for which there is no original language words and sometimes did not give any English word for some original language word. All those added words are not in italics. Thus, if translating differently the same original language words means that it is not the same, than all the KJV could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

Is translating the same original language words differently and not the same OK when in the KJV but wrong when in other translations?

Even all the 200 or more varying editions of the KJV are not the same.

I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about versions with the longer endings, and verses that are not found in other versions. There are two different sets of manuscripts that translations are made from. They do not agree. One version has certain words in a passage, one version doesn't. They CANNOT both be the "same" Word of God. What if a pastor preaches from that portion of Scripture? Some in the church may not even have that passage in the Bible they're holding in their hands. I'm telling you I've seen it. I had a lady sitting next to me in church with an NIV lean over and ask me where the pastor was reading from because she did not have those verses in her Bible. Trust me, that caused doubt in her about the Scriptures. Without choosing sides, the KJV and the NIV are different in MANY verses, you believe that doesn't cause confusion and doubt? If you believe that I have some "ocean front property in Arizona" to sell you.

 

[Baptist4life]

When you tell us which KJV is perfect, your question will be answered.

Why do you continue to try and make this a KJV issue? I'm talking about all translations, not just the KJV vs. everything else. I'm not sure which KJV, if any, is perfect. I'm just saying that two different versions, from separate manuscripts which don't agree, cannot BOTH be equally the Word of God.

 

[Amy.G]

Would someone please address this, and explain your "logic" in believing two DIFFERENT things can both be the same:




Thank you. I'll await someone's response................:BangHead:

You have yet to post any examples. Which scriptures/verses are "different"? Is it the difference in "wording" that's upsetting you? A difference in meaning? What?

 

[JonC]

I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about versions with the longer endings, and verses that are not found in other versions. There are two different sets of manuscripts that translations are made from. They do not agree. One version has certain words in a passage, one version doesn't. They CANNOT both be the "same" Word of God. What if a pastor preaches from that portion of Scripture? Some in the church may not even have that passage in the Bible they're holding in their hands. I'm telling you I've seen it. I had a lady sitting next to me in church with an NIV lean over and ask me where the pastor was reading from because she did not have those verses in her Bible. Trust me, that caused doubt in her about the Scriptures. Without choosing sides, the KJV and the NIV are different in MANY verses, you believe that doesn't cause confusion and doubt? If you believe that I have some "ocean front property in Arizona" to sell you.

It seems there are two opinions. One is that the later manuscripts (TR) added for “clarification.” The other is that the older manuscripts (MT) omitted for doctrinal “clarification.”

 

[JonC]

You have yet to post any examples. Which scriptures/verses are "different"? Is it the difference in "wording" that's upsetting you? A difference in meaning? What?

Try the last verses of Mark.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Try the last verses of Mark.

All of my MV's have it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Why do you continue to try and make this a KJV issue? I'm talking about all translations, not just the KJV vs. everything else. I'm not sure which KJV, if any, is perfect. I'm just saying that two different versions, from separate manuscripts which don't agree, cannot BOTH be equally the Word of God.

KJVO's make it the issue. They are the ones claiming "things that are different," etc.

If we apply that standard to MV's, then to be fair we must apply it to the various KJV's also. To not do so is illogical.

There are differences between the MV's for the same reason that there are differences between the KJV's.

 

[Amy.G]

How many of the critics AGAINST the KJV did you "take their word for it"?

I'm not aware of anyone "against" the KJV. It is the mindset that the KJV is the ONLY valid translation that causes a problem.

And which Greek and Hebrew should we go to? According to all KJVO critics, there are no perfect manuscripts, so then how can they say the KJV is in error when they can't even agree on which ones to compare it to? KJV is in error COMPARED TO WHAT?

You can go to any manuscript and see that the word "Easter" never appears in the Greek. Yet the word pascha in the Greek is translated Easter in English in the KJV. Which btw, the KJV translators only inserted it once in their translation even though pascha appeared as Ester 21 times in Tynedale's version. Which one is right?

If there existed today a hard copy of the originals, KJV critics would question it the same way they do now, and smash it on a mountain side. If God Himself told you He preserved ONE book, none of you KJV critics would believe it.

There are no "KJV critics". There are KJV ONLY critics.

It is because of your closed mindedness that you can't see the difference.

 

[Baptist4life]

You have yet to post any examples. Which scriptures/verses are "different"? Is it the difference in "wording" that's upsetting you? A difference in meaning? What?

(1)

(Luke 9:56)

(KJV) "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

(NIV) "and they went to another village."

(2)

(Matt. 18:11)

(KJV) "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

(3)

(Matt. 9:13)

(KJV) "...I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

(NIV) "...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

(4)

(Acts 8:37)

(KJV) "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

(5)

(Acts 9:5,6)

(KJV) "...the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city....."

(NIV) "...I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. Now get up and go into the city....

(6)

(Col. 1:14)

(KJV) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

(NIV) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

(7)

(Gal. 6:15)

(KJV) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

(NIV) "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."

(8)

(Gal. 4:7)

(KJV) "...thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

(NIV) "...you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."

(9)

(Gal. 3:17)

(KJV) "...the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ....."

(NIV) "...the covenant previously established by God"

(10)

(1 Cor. 9:18)

Paul said that he would-

(KJV) "...make the gospel of Christ without charge...."

(NIV) "...offer it free of charge...."

(11)

(Rom 1:16)

(KJV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...."

(NIV) "I am not ashamed of the gospel...."

(12)

(John 6:47)

(KJV) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

(NIV) "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

(13)

(1 Pet. 4:1)

(KJV) "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh...."

(NIV) "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body...."

(14)

(1 Cor. 5:7)

(KJV) "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:...."

(NIV) "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed...."

(15)

(1 John 5:13)

(KJV) "...and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

(NIV) (omitted)

(16)

(Eph. 4:6)


(KJV) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

(NIV) "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

(17)

(Rev. 21:24)

(KJV) "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it...."

(NIV) "The nations will walk by its light...."

(18)

(Acts 28:29)

(KJV) "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)


CHRIST'S ETERNAL EXISTENCE

(19)

(Mic. 5:2)

(KJV) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, [from everlasting]."

(NIV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, [from ancient times]."


http://www.searchthescriptures.com/newsletters/foundations.htm




Now, I'm not saying the KJV is right or wrong, just as I'm not saying the NIV is right or wrong. What I AM saying is they are not the same.


I'm tired of all this. If you haven't grasped my point by now, you never will. God bless and good nite!

 

[JonC]

All of my MV's have it.

Of course,otherwise we'd never get to Luke :laugh.


Most of mine also has it, noting that they are not present in the most ancient manuscripts.

 

[Amy.G]

I'm tired of all this. If you haven't grasped my point by now, you never will. God bless and good nite!

All those "omissions" are in the footnotes.

Good nite! :wavey:

 

[InTheLight]

This argument that if the KJV and MV don't have the exact same verses or wordings in particular verses, then only one of them is true reminds me of critics that complain that the Gospels are different and therefore can't be trusted. Why is Nicodemus and being "born again" only found in John? Was Mary Magdalene alone when she visited the tomb (John 20) or was the other Mary with her? (Matt. 28) or were there several women? (Luke 24:1) Did Judas hang himself (Matt. 27:5) or did he fall in a rock filled field and die of internal injuries? (Acts 1:18)

How do you answer these critics Baptist4Life?

 

[Winman]

This argument that if the KJV and MV don't have the exact same verses or wordings in particular verses, then only one of them is true reminds me of critics that complain that the Gospels are different and therefore can't be trusted. Why is Nicodemus and being "born again" only found in John? Was Mary Magdalene alone when she visited the tomb (John 20) or was the other Mary with her? (Matt. 28) or were there several women? (Luke 24:1) Did Judas hang himself (Matt. 27:5) or did he fall in a rock filled field and die of internal injuries? (Acts 1:18)

How do you answer these critics Baptist4Life?

Different witnesses will always give different accounts.

But how can Mark disagree with himself? Can the 16th chapter of Mark both contain and omit the last 12 verses? That is impossible.

Nice try though.

 

[robycop3]

Well, I'm of the other persuasion. While not KJVO, I am KJVP, and I believe that DIFFERENT versions of the Bible, versions that DO NOT agree with each other, versions that contain passages that other versions don't contain, etc.,..... yet people claim them ALL to be EQUALLY the Word of God (which, frankly, makes no sense, and is totally illogical) <-------I think THAT belief "instead of building up faith in the Word, actually diminishes it". IMHO, that belief causes more confusion/doubt than any KJVO person does.That has been my personal experience anyway.

The four Gospels, all narrations of the SAME EVENTS, don't agree with each other in the SAME MANUSCRIPT.

Different mss, as well as different translations, are made by different people, so all differ among themselves.

 

[Baptist4life]

The four Gospels, all narrations of the SAME EVENTS, don't agree with each other in the SAME MANUSCRIPT.

Different mss, as well as different translations, are made by different people, so all differ among themselves.

*sigh* that isn't the same thing and all of you know that. Strawman, at best.

 

[JonC]

All those "omissions" are in the footnotes.

Good nite! :wavey:

Yes, they are in the footnotes.