• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

King James vs the original Greek

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Conan said:
Yes I get it. But for the record Son is the correct reading. Once I though the readings evenly divided. But no one would change God to Son. But scribes did change Son to God. Son also has the better witnesses.
Click to expand...
Someone tried to "help out the text". just as they did for longer ending of mark and 1 John 5:7!
 
Stratton7

Stratton7

Member
SavedByGrace said:
Incorrect
Click to expand...
Doh, forgot to insert John 1:18 in that was what you said the KJB didn’t show the Deity of Jesus.
Then you said the ESV was much stronger so that would imply that you don’t see the KJB John 1:18 as not showing the deity but only that it’s just a weaker reading according to the ESV in your opinion?
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Many KJV-only advocates do not seem to be very well-informed about the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

The 1539 Great Bible, one of those former versions to the KJV, may not be overall purer in all its renderings than the 1537 Matthew’s Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible.

In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, that are omitted or removed in the KJV, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of a Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible. Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV.

Were these significant non-majority textual differences in the Great Bible (likely most from the Latin Vulgate) changes towards more purity or changes for the worse? Was someone involved with the English Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good line adding to or subtracting from the word of God? If the Latin manuscripts have signification in determining the text of Scripture as Edward Hills and David Cloud asserted, why would these readings based on the Latin be removed or omitted in the KJV?

Do you suggest that the 1611 KJV removed or omitted over 400 inspired words found in the 1540 edition of the Great Bible?
Click to expand...

Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks.

"thou shalt not kill" and "do not murder" have a different number of words.

800 words that amount to what?
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, one of the former versions of which the KJV is a revision, at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 inspired and more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s 1526 or 1534 New Testament?

Was the reading "their purification" at Luke 2:22 in some of the Textus Receptus editions and in the pre-1611 English Bibles translated from those TR editions inspired?

Was the reading "father" at Luke 2:33 in some of the Textus Receptus editions and in all the pre-1611 English Bibles except the 1560 Geneva inspired?
Click to expand...

The Superintendence of The Holy Spirit and comparison of various manuscripts did not include every word, word for word, and when variations Give the Inspired Will of God, they Live on, in Their LIFE, or not. 99.9% unquestionableness and 1% irrelevant
attempts that are correctable from before and behind, prove the point.

All exceptions prove the point of being Given by God.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Stratton7 said:
I agree because the KJB says “begotten” Son there which refers to Christ the Son of God. Even though Christ is God- when “begotten” is used, it’s the Son.


There’s going to be different opinions and readings because the underlying texts are different.
Click to expand...

The compound Greek word, "μονογενής", is literally, "one of a kind, unique", and has nothing to to with any "begetting". Had John wised to say "only-begotten", then he would have used the Greek, "μονογέννητος". Versions like the KJV were influenced, not by the Greek, but rather by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which used "unigenitus". The Old Latin before Jerome's time, used, "unicus", which is literally, "unique", which is exactly what "μονογενής" means!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
And like you do not understand. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Which 99.5+% of the copies of John correctly have. And some mere 5 mss are supposed to be better.
Click to expand...

ah, you and your 95% of INCORRECT "evidence"!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Stratton7 said:
Doh, forgot to insert John 1:18 in that was what you said the KJB didn’t show the Deity of Jesus.
Then you said the ESV was much stronger so that would imply that you don’t see the KJB John 1:18 as not showing the deity but only that it’s just a weaker reading according to the ESV in your opinion?
Click to expand...

HOW can the verse with "Son" show Jesus' Deity? Can you really use this reading to show that Jesus Christ is God, when speaking with the JW's?
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
The compound Greek word, "μονογενής", is literally, "one of a kind, unique", and has nothing to to with any "begetting". Had John wised to say "only-begotten", then he would have used the Greek, "μονογέννητος". Versions like the KJV were influenced, not by the Greek, but rather by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which used "unigenitus". The Old Latin before Jerome's time, used, "unicus", which is literally, "unique", which is exactly what "μονογενής" means!
Click to expand...

What do you use for a text?

Comparatively Correct or Demonically known to be Corrupt? (Westcott)
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alan Gross said:
What do you use for a text?

Comparatively Correct or Demonically known to be Corrupt? (Westcott)
Click to expand...
Or the text that was done by someone enslaved to Rome theology, and who took in readings from the Vulgate and at times God only knows, Eramus?
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
Or the text that was done by someone enslaved to Rome theology, and who took in readings from the Vulgate and at times God only knows, Eramus?
Click to expand...

the Church used Jerome's Latin Vulgate for over 1000 years. It was only in 1488 that the Hebrew Bible was published. Then, in 1502, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Ximenes, began work on his elaborate edition of the Holy Bible. For the OT he used the Hebrew, Greek, Latin; and for the NT, Greek and Latin. The Vulgate did have much influence on the Versions after, like Wycliffe, the first English Bible.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Alan Gross said:
What if those words have been intentionally altered, by Demonic influence? "Wrestled", for example, by Westcott and Hort, as directly involved with Familiar Spirits, in Saunces, etc.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Greek, or Latin? the Greek dates from the 2nd century AD, and the Old Latin, about the same time. the Vulgate by Jerome is 4th century. So, nothing to do with W&H!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top