Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

[Mexdeaf]

As far as the text Jesus reading being different from the Hebrew text, the Holy Spirit has complete freedom to restate himself anytime he chooses.

We do not have this right.

If that is what you truly believe, then you had better quote Bible verses very carefully, without adding or subtracting any words. Oh, by the way which if the KJV's is perfect- the 1611 or the 1769? They both can't be, according to your beliefs.

Just in case you missed it:

So did the 1611 edition of the KJV take away from 1 John 5:12 or did the 1769 edition add to it?

 

[Winman]

If that is what you truly believe, then you had better quote Bible verses very carefully, without adding or subtracting any words. Oh, by the way which if the KJV's is perfect- the 1611 or the 1769? They both can't be, according to your beliefs.

Just in case you missed it:

So did the 1611 edition of the KJV take away from 1 John 5:12 or did the 1769 edition add to it?

I do try to be careful quoting scripture, don't you?

As far as the changes made in the KJB from 1611 to 1769, this question has been answered multiple times. Most of the changes were spelling changes (which is no change at all), or corrections of typographical errors (which is no change at all either). There have been textual changes that are very minor which in no way affects doctrine. It is a given that translations must add words at times to give the full and literal meaning of the original language. Most of these changes have been for clarification.

This is altogether different from the Critical Text which has nearly 3000 less words in the text, is missing dozens of verses and complete passages. You can't translate a verse or passage that is completely missing from the text.

It's almost comical, you repeatedly point out minuscule changes in the KJB and overlook major differences in the CT. That is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

 

[annsni]

So did the 1611 edition of the KJV take away from 1 John 5:12 or did the 1769 edition add to it?

As far as the changes made in the KJB from 1611 to 1769, this question has been answered multiple times. Most of the changes were spelling changes (which is no change at all), or corrections of typographical errors (which is no change at all either). There have been textual changes that are very minor which in no way affects doctrine. It is a given that translations must add words at times to give the full and literal meaning of the original language. Most of these changes have been for clarification.

This is altogether different from the Critical Text which has nearly 3000 less words in the text, is missing dozens of verses and complete passages. You can't translate a verse or passage that is completely missing from the text.

It's almost comical, you repeatedly point out minuscule changes in the KJB and overlook major differences in the CT. That is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Yet you still didn't answer Mexdeaf's direct question.

Just to make it a little easier for you:

KJV 1611 "He that hath the Sonne hath life; and he that hath not the Sonne hath not life."

Modern KJV "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

So was this a spelling error? A typographical error??

 

[sag38]

Now ya'll remember KJVonlyist don't like the same methods they use to criticize MV's turned around and applied to them. And, it's not an attemp to belittle the KJV but to point out a double standard.

 

[Winman]

Yet you still didn't answer Mexdeaf's direct question.

Just to make it a little easier for you:

KJV 1611 "He that hath the Sonne hath life; and he that hath not the Sonne hath not life."

Modern KJV "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

So was this a spelling error? A typographical error??

I have answered this. The "of God" is simply an addition that was made to clarify the true meaning of this verse.

The original verse is not error whatsoever, but the newer translation makes the meaning clearer. It is not saying simply any son, but the Son of God.

I will ask you, does adding "of God" to this verse affect doctrine, or strengthen it?

 

[sag38]

Good luck Ann on getting a clear answer. The double standard is so glaring but the blind do not want to see. Once one is caught up in the KJVO heresy there's very little reasoning with him or her.

 

[annsni]

I have answered this. The "of God" is simply an addition that was made to clarify the true meaning of this verse.

The original verse is not error whatsoever, but the newer translation makes the meaning clearer. It is not saying simply any son, but the Son of God.

I will ask you, does adding "of God" to this verse affect doctrine, or strengthen it?

Do you stand by that? The two versions are different. There is a difference in numbers of words apparently. The 1611 takes out "of God" or the 1769 adds it. They can't both be right. They have DIFFERENT WORDS. So which one is the inspired Word of God? They can't both be since they are different.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have answered this. The "of God" is simply an addition that was made to clarify the true meaning of this verse.

The original verse is not error whatsoever, but the newer translation makes the meaning clearer. It is not saying simply any son, but the Son of God.

I will ask you, does adding "of God" to this verse affect doctrine, or strengthen it?

So changing the Bible is acceptable if it clarifies the passage, correct?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The greatest double standard is that the KJVonlyers hold all versions to a word-for-word translational standard except the KJV. They are like building inspectors who find fault in every building they inspect, but refuse to look at their own house with the same intensity. I was a fundamentalist KJVonlyer for the first 30yrs of my life, until I examined my own beliefs by the same standard I was taught to judge others by. The foundation of their faith is not really the Bible, it is their church traditions & doctrines.

 

[glfredrick]

The greatest double standard is that the KJVonlyers hold all versions to a word-for-word translational standard except the KJV. They are like building inspectors who find fault in every building they inspect, but refuse to look at their own house with the same intensity. I was a fundamentalist KJVonlyer for the first 30yrs of my life, until I examined my own beliefs by the same standard I was taught to judge others by. The foundation of their faith is not really the Bible, it is their church traditions & doctrines.

Yup... I was taught by the same. Worse still is standing on a tradition of a Bible pressed forward by a King who persecuted our ancestors. I can understand perfectly using that version, but defending it as THE Word of God is idolatry.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have answered this. The "of God" is simply an addition that was made to clarify the true meaning of this verse.

The original verse is not error whatsoever, but the newer translation makes the meaning clearer. It is not saying simply any son, but the Son of God.

I will ask you, does adding "of God" to this verse affect doctrine, or strengthen it?

Hey, it is adding to the Word of God, is it not?? You know what happens to folks who do that don't you?

It also affects doctrine just as much as, say:

- The NIV leaving "Jesus thou" out of Matthew 8:29

- The NIV leaving "Lord" out of Matthew 13:51

- The ESV changing "man" to "one" in Romans 5:7 and 10:10 (as well as many other verses)

- and many other unfair comparisons that KJVO make between the various KJV's and other versions

 

[Amy.G]

I don't think anyone has a problem with a missing word or word order or an additional word. That is just the result of translating from one language to another.

The problem some of us have is the missing verses and blocks of scripture. I am not KJVO. I like the NKJV. I prefer the TR over the CT.

How do those of you who prefer the CT explain all the missing verses?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello C4K

If Winman doesn’t mind, I will respond to something you asked him.

You asked........

“So changing the Bible is acceptable if it clarifies the passage, correct?”

Now I can’t answer for Winman, but for myself, the answer is yes.
--------------------------------------------------
But.....as Winman has pointed out many times, today’s scholarship, will not stop there.

As a matter of fact, from what I have learned about what happened back in 1881, Wescott & Hort were originally commissioned to do just that, with the KJB, but they took the opportunity that they had been given and tried to completely replace the KJB New Testament, with their own man-made Greek text.
--------------------------------------------------
Now back to the point.
Yes, it would be great if the KJB could be “HONESTLY” updated, sticking to it’s TR roots; Changing some of the English words that have changed meaning.

But, this will never happen, because of the tremendous pressure that the publisher will be put under, to take in to account, all the discoveries that have been made over the last 400 years, including Wescott & Hort’s perverted text.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, some may ask...”What’s wrong with considering those discoveries”?
And my response will be, “What’s wrong with God’s Word?” Can it be IMPROVED by “man’s discoveries”.

You don’t FIX God’s Word, it FIXES you!!!

 

[Winman]

Hey, it is adding to the Word of God, is it not?? You know what happens to folks who do that don't you?

All translations from one language to another necessitate adding words at times. This is not the issue. The issue isn't translation (although there are some poor translations). The issue is the source text. All MVs except the NKJV use the Critical Text as their source text. This text is missing thousands of words, and many dozens of verses. The most important verse showing that babies should not be baptized is Acts 8:37. The ESV version does not translate this verse into English because the Critical Text is missing this verse. You cannot translate scripture that is missing.

The exact words needed to translate Greek (or any language) into English might have some flexibility, as there are many similar words with similar meanings. This is not the issue. The issue is that the Critical Text is missing many words, verses and passages shown in the Received Text. Either the CT diminished from God's word or the RT added to it (I am speaking of the original Greek text), but they are not the same, and saying they are a thousand times will not change reality.

 

[robycop3]

Duhhh...Howdya KNOW the words are missing in the mss in question? Howdya KNOW material hasn't been ADDED to certain mss?

 

[Luke2427]

All translations from one language to another necessitate adding words at times. This is not the issue. The issue isn't translation (although there are some poor translations). The issue is the source text. All MVs except the NKJV use the Critical Text as their source text. This text is missing thousands of words, and many dozens of verses. The most important verse showing that babies should not be baptized is Acts 8:37. The ESV version does not translate this verse into English because the Critical Text is missing this verse. You cannot translate scripture that is missing.

The exact words needed to translate Greek (or any language) into English might have some flexibility, as there are many similar words with similar meanings. This is not the issue. The issue is that the Critical Text is missing many words, verses and passages shown in the Received Text. Either the CT diminished from God's word or the RT added to it (I am speaking of the original Greek text), but they are not the same, and saying they are a thousand times will not change reality.

Or both. The TR is not perfect. The CT is not perfect. The MT is not perfect. But in the superabundance of manuscripts is the Word of God preserved for scholars to find.

We use them all, compare them all and thereby have little trouble finding the Word of God.

 

[annsni]

All translations from one language to another necessitate adding words at times. This is not the issue. The issue isn't translation (although there are some poor translations). The issue is the source text. All MVs except the NKJV use the Critical Text as their source text. This text is missing thousands of words, and many dozens of verses. The most important verse showing that babies should not be baptized is Acts 8:37. The ESV version does not translate this verse into English because the Critical Text is missing this verse. You cannot translate scripture that is missing.

The exact words needed to translate Greek (or any language) into English might have some flexibility, as there are many similar words with similar meanings. This is not the issue. The issue is that the Critical Text is missing many words, verses and passages shown in the Received Text. Either the CT diminished from God's word or the RT added to it (I am speaking of the original Greek text), but they are not the same, and saying they are a thousand times will not change reality.

But even the original texts did not have "of God" in it in 1 John 5:12. The translators of the KJV knew that and did not add it. It was added later. It was not needed to make the text clear because we know Who it was talking about. It added in words which is forbidden in Scripture - and is forbidden by the KJVOliers in the modern versions. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If it is wrong to add words in the modern versions, it's wrong in the KJV as well. It is not what God wrote so it's wrong.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Therefore, if Jesus Himself, recognized a “version” to be God’s preserved Word, than so can we.

This is a half-false conclusion.

PROBLEM#1: Jesus, Paul, and the Apostlolic writers quote many verses; you do not know that they are all quotes from "a" single source. More likely, they actually represent multiple "versions".

PROBLEM#2: An accurate translation of a single verse (or even many verses) does not mean that Jesus (or any person) would endorse the entire "version". If you've proved anything at all, it would only be that Jesus endorsed this particular translation of this verse. (Which was likely translated twice: spoken in Aramaic from the ancient Hebrew writing and then recorded in Greek.)

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't think anyone has a problem with a missing word or word order or an additional word. That is just the result of translating from one language to another. ...

Yes, if the words or word order is simply a different construction for English. But the words "of God" missing from 1 John 5:12 in the AV1611 are not the result of re-arrangement or words offered as clarification for English comprehension (they are not italicized).

 

[Mexdeaf]

As a matter of fact, from what I have learned about what happened back in 1881, Wescott & Hort were originally commissioned to do just that, with the KJB, but they took the opportunity that they had been given and tried to completely replace the KJB New Testament, with their own man-made Greek text.

1. I think your facts about what W&H were asked to do are a bit "off".

2. All of the Greek texts we have are "man-made". That's part of the problem. We don't have the originals to worship, er, study.

Yes, it would be great if the KJB could be “HONESTLY” updated, sticking to it’s TR roots; Changing some of the English words that have changed meaning.

This was attempted with the NKJV, and rejected by the majority of KJVO. It was also done with the New Scofield Reference Bible (rather tastefully, I thought) and was rejected by the majority of KJVO.

But, this will never happen, because of the tremendous pressure that the publisher will be put under, to take in to account, all the discoveries that have been made over the last 400 years, including Wescott & Hort’s perverted text.

No, It will never happen because there is no need for it, and the target market already has their "self-defining, Greek-correcting, letter- and word-perfect, uncopyrighted 1611 (actually a 1611 with added words) AV Bible". The KJVO crowd will find something wrong with anything that is not the "1611 KJV".

There is nothing wrong with "God's Word" but there is a lot wrong with a lot of translations- including the KJV. But the biggest "wrong" lies in the thinking of those who demand from God something that He does not require of Himself.