KJV and the modern versions

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
JP Green: These "heresies," as Green calls them, stem from the reliance of modern day translators on a handful of manuscripts anchored on two Egyptian manuscripts of the fourth century in which verses are altered in order to establish the view that Jesus essentially was not God, but a created god.

One of these old Egyptian manuscripts (the Sinaiticus) actually has in John 1:18, "the only begotten God," making Jesus to be a begotten creature, and therefore not eternally existent in the "express image of God's essence" (Heb. 1:3).

Ann: And why is this any different than "only begotten son" in John 3:16?

HP: Ask any JW. They could tell you in short order.
Quote:
Green further charges:
Many other "cardinal" doctrines of the Scriptures fall victim to this free-wheeling treatment of the words of God....The sinlessness of Christ is contradicted by the handling of Matt. 5:22, where He is made liable to the Judgment in the new versions. And of course He could not be sinless unless He had been born as the first-born Son of a virgin and fathered by the Holy Spirit of God.

Ann: I don't see the issue with this. I don't see where Jesus is said to be sinful. Can you help with that?

HP: I had a hard time with this one as well. I picked up Adam Clarke and read him for a clue. He pointed to printed remarks by Dr. Lightfoot at the closing of Chapter Five, where Dr. Lightfoot gives us an explanation close to the remarks of J.P. Green’s. It appears as if though 'possibly' Lightfoot and others feel that Christ was Himself angry at times,(although just) and sat in judgement of others, something this verse, in the form written in the NIV, would say places one in danger of the judgment, thus denying that Christ was sinless and as such in danger of the judgment. Again, seen in light of the wording in the NIV alone, it would make Christ guilty of the very thing that places one in danger of the judgment. That at least is how I see it in my understanding of JP Green and Lightfoot.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

a. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause
b. Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Quote:
JP Green: The Ascension of Christ back to His place in Heaven is left out in three of the four places where it is affirmed in the Scriptures, or footnotes effectively put it in doubt.

Ann: Maybe there were those who "put it in" rather than those who "left it out". If it was not in the manuscripts in the 3 places, it is easy to understand how translators would "put it in" to make it consistent. However, that is not true translating methods. If the translators wished to make it doubtful that the ascension of Christ took place, why would they even leave one in? That's just stupid.

HP: “Maybe” if a frog quit jumping he would quit bumping his rear when he does. :wavey:
If you note he is making reference evidently to the mere minimal amount of translations he alludes to as being aberrations of the truth of Scripture, Egyptian in original, comprising only from one to five percent of the overall available manuscripts. It has been stated that the Egyptian’s were never known to ever be in possession of any of the original documents. The texts coming from Egypt were clearly in opposition to that which the vast majority of the texts clearly stated where the original manuscripts are known to have been accessible.
Quote:
JP Green: The very inerrancy of the Scriptures is constantly denied by the nature of the changes, or put under a cloud of doubts by the footnotes. Many other such like things can be shown to be the effect of the changes made in the new versions (Preface, p.xi).”

Ann: Interestingly enough, the KJV also had translators notes in their 1611 version - notes that were important enough to put in there and for them to write about it in the preface yet there were men who chose to take out those inspired words. What about the doubt that THEY caused?

HP: There is no just comparison between the footnotes in the KJV and the utilization of completely different texts of the modern translators and the multiplicity of doubt gendered by such omissions, changes, and multitudes of footnotes found in the MV's.

 

[dfj]

See What We Can See

Strawman: The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

Heb 9:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:22 (NIV)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

.

Heb 9:22a
"and, almost all things are by the Law purged with blood"
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood"

I don't see much difference here, both intimate basically the same precept.

Next:

Heb 9:22b
"and without shedding of blood is no remission."
"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

I don't see much difference here either, again, both intimate basically the same precept.

Perhaps I am not seeing what you see?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Who killed Goliath? Are you certain of it? Where do you get your evidence from?

 

[annsni]

Who killed Goliath? Are you certain of it? Where do you get your evidence from?

David killed Goliath.

Did you notice in the KJV at 2 Samuel 21:19, that the words "the brother of" is in italics? That means it was not in ANY of the manuscripts and was ADDED.

Of course, we know that David killed Goliath and there is no issue with the 2 Samuel verse.

 

[dfj]

Who killed Goliath? Are you certain of it? Where do you get your evidence from?

1 Sa 17:50: So David triumphed over the Philistine, (the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name - vs. 23), with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

(BHS) vs. 23 Gaalyaat ha-Pªlishtiy and Daawid in the same verse
(Copyright (c)1967/77, 1983 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart)

I'm open?

 

[antiaging]

Proof for your claims?You are out on a broken limb with your assertions.




Your first sentence here is doubtful.Where's your documentation?I hope Chick isn't the only thing you have.

BTW,if an edition came out in 1655 it could not have been the 1611 edition.



How about old age?I really don't think you have any proof for your wild statements.






The TR family of texts didn't come ito a recognizable form until 1624.So you are about a century off.Math isn't your forte I guess.




You better be careful about defaming W&H.They were godly scholars which you would like to sully.Cease and desist.




And I suppose you think any textual family other than the TR's do not teach salvation through faith in Christ alone?Nonsense.

I sincerely doubt that the Jesuits are doing what you think.Besides,how can they destroy what so many have in their possesssion?




You are into mystery and intrique;that's for sure!Many favor the MV's over that of a version which basically originated almost 500 years ago.I see no problem (neither does God -- I speak reverently) with His Word being in modern language.You do want people to understand God's Word -- don't you?



I'll AMEN what Roger already has.




You got that right!

QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.
The answer book, Samuel Gipp Thd.

The name textus receptus came into existence after 1611. The manuscripts, copies of the original writings of the apostles, was around since the first century.

EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.
Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.
Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.
Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.
So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.
The answer book by Samuel Gipp

An edition is not a new version.
The King James bible we have today is the same as the 1611 version, it is just a later edition of it to standardize spelling, correct printing errors, upgrade to more modern English and upgrade weights, measures and money equivalents.
In 1769 the edition upgraded wights, measures and money.
The edition before it upgraded to standardiezed english spelling.

There are no revisions of the KJV. No other versions.
There are only different editions of the original 1611 version.
The only translators of it were the original men appointed by King James.

The modern versions are really new versions and revisions. They use the Hort and Westcott eclectic which mixes in other CORRUPTED manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt.

Read the quotes by Hort and Westcott from their autobiographies to see what those men really believed and were involved in.

Hort
1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott: "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 - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."

http://www.acts1711.com/h_w1.htm

Hort: autobiography
"The Romish view seems to me more nearer and more likely to lead to the truth than the evangelical... We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us."

Hort;
"but you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist."
(belief in the sacraments)
That is works salvation by doing the works of sacraments to get saved. It contradicts what the bible says about salvation is by grace through faith in ephesians. It is not of works.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

2Sam. 21:19 in the NIV reads: In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

The NIV clearly shows itself inconsistent in this matter. If one simply read the two passages in the NIV and that is all they read, they would clearly wonder as to the truth, would they not? Hence the question.

 

[annsni]

QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.
The answer book, Samuel Gipp Thd.

The name textus receptus came into existence after 1611. The manuscripts, copies of the original writings of the apostles, was around since the first century.

EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.
Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.
Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.
Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.
So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.
The answer book by Samuel Gipp

An edition is not a new version.
The King James bible we have today is the same as the 1611 version, it is just a later edition of it to standardize spelling, correct printing errors, upgrade to more modern English and upgrade weights, measures and money equivalents.
In 1769 the edition upgraded wights, measures and money.
The edition before it upgraded to standardiezed english spelling.

There are no revisions of the KJV. No other versions.
There are only different editions of the original 1611 version.
The only translators of it were the original men appointed by King James.

The modern versions are really new versions and revisions. They use the Hort and Westcott eclectic which mixes in other CORRUPTED manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt.

Read the quotes by Hort and Westcott from their autobiographies to see what those men really believed and were involved in.

Hort
1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott: "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 - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."

http://www.acts1711.com/h_w1.htm

Hort: autobiography
"The Romish view seems to me more nearer and more likely to lead to the truth than the evangelical... We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us."

Hort;
"but you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist."
(belief in the sacraments)
That is works salvation by doing the works of sacraments to get saved. It contradicts what the bible says about salvation is by grace through faith in ephesians. It is not of works.

I do not see anything condemning in their quotes. Remember that "sacraments" doesn't mean an act imparting grace to everyone. It was common to call communion and baptism "sacraments" in the past. We have a newer definition. Note Noah Webster's definition of "sacrament" in 1828:

" In present usage, an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace; or more particularly, a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, the head of the christian church, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him renewed and ratified. Thus baptism is called a sacrament, for by it persons are separated from the world, brought into Christ's visible church, and laid under particular obligations to obey his precepts. The eucharist or communion of the Lord's supper, is also a sacrament, for by commemorating the death and dying love of Christ, christians avow their special relation to him, and renew their obligations to be faithful to their divine Master. When we use sacrament without any qualifying word, we mean by it,
4. The eucharist or Lord's supper."

Today I know that when I hear "sacrament", I think of the idea that the thing that is being done is the thing that gives grace to the person. Having been adopted into a Catholic family and having gone to Catholic school, I know that the sacraments of baptism and communion mean something very different to Catholics and others than it does to us in my Baptist church. We call them "ordinances" to get away from the idea of "mystery" that a sacrament involves but years ago, I think it was much more common for believers to call it a sacrament.

 

[dfj]

Textual Inclusions

2Sam. 21:19 in the NIV reads: In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

The NIV clearly shows itself inconsistent in this matter.

2 Sam. 21:19; "Beeyt-ha-Lachmiy 'eet Gaalyaat" (in Hebrew)

The phrase "the brother of" does not appear in the Hebrew Text in this verse.

That would appear to make the NIV more correct, at least in this verse.

I'm still open to new evidence.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Ed Edwards
Strawman: The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

Heb 9:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:22 (NIV)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

.

Heb 9:22a
"and, almost all things are by the Law purged with blood"
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood"

I don't see much difference here, both intimate basically the same precept.

Next:

Heb 9:22b
"and without shedding of blood is no remission."
"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

I don't see much difference here either, again, both intimate basically the same precept.

Perhaps I am not seeing what you see?

I was trying to disprove this Strawman (error argument):
The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

I showed an example where the 'blood of Jesus' is NOT omitted from the NIV. You saw exactly what I saw :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

2Sam. 21:19 in the NIV reads: In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

The NIV clearly shows itself inconsistent in this matter. If one simply read the two passages in the NIV and that is all they read, they would clearly wonder as to the truth, would they not? Hence the question.

Since "the brother of" does not occur at this passage in ANY of the ancient manuscripts - TR or otherwise, the NIV translators were faithful to the texts. However, since 1 Chron. 20:5 DOES say "In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." in the NIV and notates that in the 2 Samuel passage, I think that the NIV handled this in the most faithful manner to the original manuscripts.

Honestly, this is a case that condemns the translators of the KJV.

 

[dfj]

Very Good

[/B][/I]


I was trying to disprove this Strawman (error argument):
The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

I showed an example where the 'blood of Jesus' is NOT omitted from the NIV. You saw exactly what I saw :thumbs:

Very good. I think it's going to take me a while to get back into the swing of things in fast process debates. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

dfj: That would appear to make the NIV more correct, at least in this verse.

HP: Well that certainly lands credence then to the notion that this might not be in reality a true story at all, for the NIV clearly has it both ways. The particulars in a fairy tail really have little significance, right? Some believe that, you know.

If the translators of the NIV honestly felt that Goliath was killed by David, why did they not simply put that in so as to be consistent with the original intent of the authors? At least then we might know what it was that they believed to be the truth in place of the flat contradiction they leave the reader with.


If Scripture is in fact the inspired and inerrant Word of God, did God make this seeming contradiction? If not to what is it attributed to, and why would the NIV fail to rectify that problem, especially in light of all the other problems it seems bent on ‘fixing?’

I am still open to new evidence as well.

 

[dfj]

No Condemnation

Since "the brother of" does not occur at this passage in ANY of the ancient manuscripts - TR or otherwise, the NIV translators were faithful to the texts. However, since 1 Chron. 20:5 DOES say "In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." in the NIV and notates that in the 2 Samuel passage, I think that the NIV handled this in the most faithful manner to the original manuscripts.

Honestly, this is a case that condemns the translators of the KJV.

The real question is, did this occurrence really cause the KJV not to be representative of the "Word of God"? I would say no!

 

[dfj]

God Does Fix Things

HP: Well that certainly lands credence then to the notion that this might not be in reality a true story at all, for the NIV clearly has it both ways. The particulars in a fairy tail really have little significance, right? Some believe that, you know.

If the translators of the NIV honestly felt that Goliath was killed by David, why did they not simply put that in so as to be consistent with the original intent of the authors? At least then we might know what it was that they believed to be the truth in place of the flat contradiction they leave the reader with.

The reader questions, the Lord answers.

If Scripture is in fact the inspired and inerrant Word of God, did God make this seeming contradiction? If not to what is it attributed to, and why would the NIV fail to rectify that problem, especially in light of all the other problems it seems bent on ‘fixing?’

I am still open to new evidence as well.

God does fix the things that man makes mistakes at. The LORD has given us a way to rightfully divide His Word(s); which is what we are trying to do right now.

 

[annsni]

HP: Well that certainly lands credence then to the notion that this might not be in reality a true story at all, for the NIV clearly has it both ways. The particulars in a fairy tail really have little significance, right? Some believe that, you know.

If the translators of the NIV honestly felt that Goliath was killed by David, why did they not simply put that in so as to be consistent with the original intent of the authors? At least then we might know what it was that they believed to be the truth in place of the flat contradiction they leave the reader with.


If Scripture is in fact the inspired and inerrant Word of God, did God make this seeming contradiction? If not to what is it attributed to, and why would the NIV fail to rectify that problem, especially in light of all the other problems it seems bent on ‘fixing?’

I am still open to new evidence as well.

The translators of the NIV were sure to notate the issue in the footnote which is clearly listed in my NIV that I have sitting next to me. In addition, since they are being faithful to the manuscripts, I don't see what the issue is. Take it up with God because HE'S the one who wrote it.

 

[annsni]

The real question is, did this occurrence really cause the KJV not to be representative of the "Word of God"? I would say no!

I agree. This is exactly something that, if it were the other way, would seem to be a slam dunk for the KJVO crowd but since it's the other way, they STILL will use it against the MV. :BangHead:

If someone were confused by it, the NIV is clear to point out the other instance of a parallel passage to clear up any misconception. However, the NIV writers were being faithful to the original texts and I respect them for that. I also respect the KJV writers for adding in "the brother of" in italics. However, I wish the KJVO crowd would understand that those words were added for one reason or another - just the same as the MV writers do at times to make something more clear.

Both the KJV and the NIV are correct in this passage, IMO.

 

[Ed Edwards]

In reference to post #196 by antiaging:
your reference:

http://www.acts1711.com/h_w1.htm BAD REFERENCE

notes the following sources (not a web reference):

Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.

I know some three people who have checked the quotes from the multiple places (like 58 on the internet) that have cut and pasted the same misquotes in their space. The 58 sources are NOT reliable, the 3 people I know are reliable.

One person is Robocop3 who has documented his finds at the Baptist Only Forum: Versions & Translations here at BB. Another person is Brian Tegart (BrianT on some boards) who has a web site at:

http://www.kjv-only.com/

and a defense of Westcott & Hort at:

http://www.westcotthort.com/

These sites are found reliable concerning the benifit of the works of Westcott & Hort without the demeaning belittling of those individuals.

The third studier of the actual works of Westcott & Hort posts at this bb (bulletin board):

http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/forums/6/t/Westcott-and-Hort.html

(beware, some anti- W&H folk post there also)



The KJV found on this page:

http://www.kingjamesman.com/

is the only 'perfect KJV' I've found.

'Perfect KJV' is as defined on this page as being 'non-counterfeit':

"Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles"

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Again, proving my contention:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dfj: The real question is, did this occurrence really cause the KJV not to be representative of the "Word of God"? I would say no!

HP: Why would it? The KJV was the Word of God in that it was the ‘ brother of Goliath,’ not Goliath himself (as the NIV wrongly states) that the verse spoke of, in agreement to the original words given to us by God.

It is a truth that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same sense. God could not have said that it ‘was Goliath,’ and at the same time and in the same sense said it was ‘not Goliath but rather his brother,’ and still be the inspired and inerrant Words of God. One or the other must of necessity be in error.

So we have a decision to make. Is the NIV right or the KJV right? That is the honest question that needs to be answered. I will stand by faith on the KJV without the least shred of doubt.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: However, the NIV writers were being faithful to the original texts and I respect them for that

HP: Now there is a piece of information that needs some clear supporting evidence. They were faithful to what 'original texts?'