Featured King James vs the original Greek

Does the CT rendering though make Jesus not to be God? I think not....

 

Which KJVO seem to assert that it does mean has to be using that!

 

Norman Geisler, even though did not agree with his views on Calvinism, was a respected bible authority!

 

he was, but on this he is wrong

 

the reading of the KJV, for example, does not testify to the Deity of Jesus Christ, and equality with the Father. The CT of N&A 28/UBS5, reading does!

 

How can that be, per KJVO though?

 

I am NOT KJVO!

 

I know. was just wondering how KJVO can explain how the "corrupted' CT got ot right here, while the "perfect" TR did not!

 

this is where textual studies is important to look at other "texts"

 

That may be your opinion perhaps according to your own personal definition of critical text.

You have provided no standard definition for critical text that proves that it is required for a text to have a critical apparatus before it can be called a critical text. The term critical text has likely been defined in more than one way so that your definition for it is not the only acceptable one.

Many would think that it is sound and fair to call any edited text based on multiple manuscripts with the editing involving textual criticism decisions to be a "critical text."

 

take a look at #116

 

That is not how to do textual criticism. You want God’s original text and go from there.

 

Erasmus from his first edition critically consulted multiple Greek Manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, and both Latin and Greek fathers. You are not familiar enough to know the differences.

 

you are not getting it! For an edition of either the Old or New Testament, to be used "critically" by anyone interested in textual studies, they must have the variant readings, as I have shown in the second image in #116. The first might be the product of manuscripts, versions, etc, but is a bog-standard text! It is not much for anyone who is interested in WHERE they got their accepted readings from! For example, in #109, there is the reading for "Unique God" in John 1:18, which, as the textual evidence shows, is the older and better attested reading, than the KJV. This is a "critical" New Testament, used to determine which is the original reading, and WHY, as seen from the textual evidence.

 

And HOW do you know which reading is the Original for John 1:18?

 

Would you feel different is Erasmus had a note there? Excuse me, annotations.

 

I can read GOD instead of SON, if I made my own version of the NT. But, I will need to justify why I have chosen this reading, rather than that some of the older versions, like the KJV read, SON. The critical notes that give the manuscripts, versions, Church fathers, will show why the reading GOD is what John uses in his Gospel, 1:18. Do you get this?

 

The disagreement is over which is God's word and which is not.

 

“Henry Morris wrote, “From our perspective today, we can see them more clearly since they have already been fulfilled, providing strong evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. We today, therefore, have less excuse for ignoring God’s Word than they did and so must
be judged more severely if we do so” (52).

It is clear from our investigation that the Bible contains certain properties where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production. Specifically it has been demonstrated that the particular characteristics of the Bible’s
treatment of science do transcend mere human invention and all predictive prophecies recorded in the Bible are predictive prophecies which can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural influence and which were made known before their corresponding fulfillments. Therefore, the Bible must be what it claims to be, which is the inspired word of God.”

“2nd Timothy 3:16 proclaims, "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Some teachers lift out the words “is given,” claiming that only the original autographs given by God were inspired. I have a serious problem with that, because God promised to PRESERVE His Word in Psalm 12:6,7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

“In Exodus 4:10 we find Moses lacking confidence in his own communication skills, and yet God used Moses to author the first five books of the Old Testament, "And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue."

Same as the translators of the KJB stating there could be imperfections, Moses didn’t feel qualified to relay God’s words. But a perfect work was still achieved.

Those first 10 commandments that were broken (originals OT) were inspired, yes? Being broken and God having to do them again, surely the 2nd 10 commandments were inspired too? No reason to see otherwise that He hasn’t done the same today with his preserved words being inspired.