KJV Leaves Out Jesus

[revmwc]

Well, take a look at these "intimidating" charts!

NASB: Jesus KJV: He....36 times
NASB: Jesus KJV:him...16 times
NASB: Jesus KJV: his...1 time
NASB: Spirit of Jesus KJV: Spirit...1 time
NASB: Christ Jesus KJV: Christ 5 times
NASB: Jesus KJV this.....1 time
NASB: Jesus Christ our Lord KJV {OMIT} 2 times
NASB: Jesus KJV {OMIT} 2 times

That's a total of 64 times the KJV removed the word Jesus

Now, taking that with your total of 64, and it looks like we break even doesn't it.

NASB "Jesus" KJV "He"
Matt 5:1, Matt 8:24, Matt 9:1,
Matt 10:1, Matt 12:48, Matt 13:11,
Matt 13:24, Matt 13:52, Matt 15:10,
Matt 15:39, Matt 22:34, Matt 24:34,
Matt 26:20, Matt 26:45, Mark 1:35,
Mark 2:27, Mark 4:38, Mark 6:1,
Mark 6:45, Mark 7:24, Mark 9:1,
Luke 4:42, Luke 5:16, Luke 5:34,
Luke 6:17, Luke 7:15, Luke 8:22,
Luke 11:1, Luke 11:27, Luke 18:35,
Luke 19:11, Luke 19:40, Luke 19:45,
Luke 20:3, Luke 20:3, Luke 20:17,
Luke 22:8

NASB Jesus KJV him
Matt 9:10(2nd), Matt 12:10, Matt 12:22,
Matt 17:14, Matt 19:3, Matt 20:20,
Matt 22:23, Matt 26:16, Mark 1:30,
Mark 1:40, Mark 8:22, Mark 10:2,
Mark 10:35, Mark 12:18, Luke 8:24,

KJV on left, NASB on right
John 4:40 him Jesus
Acts 3:16 his Jesus
Acts 10:48 the Lord Jesus Christ
Acts 18:25 the Lord Jesus
Acts 16:7 Spirit Spirit of Jesus
Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24,
Eph 3:6, Col 4:12 Christ Christ Jesus
Rom 8:11 Christ Christ Jesus
Acts 9:20 Christ Jesus
Acts 9:22 this Jesus
Heb 7:24 this man Jesus
Romans 1:4, Jude 1:25 [not present] Jesus Christ our Lord
Matt 16:1, John 19:17 [not present] Jesus
NASB Jesus KJV this man...1 time

source: http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew2.html

You think maybe there is the name Jesus in a verse or two ahead that clarifies the "He" in those verses.
Why not we just get write the book out in the original form without chapter and verse if we really want what the early church had, all was one continuous writting with no chapters and verses. By the way the very first verse you list Matthew 5:1 says He, Matthew 4:23 let you know who the He is so now you can go back and understand the Matthew 4:23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people says that the "He" in 5:1 is Jesus. Do we need to help you find the clarifying portions on all of it.
You can find fault in things you don't like, most people do that with folks they dislike, why not find what you like good about it and quit being so negative. We get it you don't like the KJV, I was raised reading it and still like it, you use what you like.
What I see is people finding fault with God's word whatever translation it is, I have found a discrepency in the NIV and to me it is makes no sense sonce I learned the verses with the KJV but I know many who use it that is their preference. I am not a KJVO person I use for personal preference. All translations have their good and bad points but with a little effort one can find what the scripture is saying. Study means you have to dig a little, reading is just that reading and not necessarilly caring about the meaning of what you read.

 

[Jim1999]

But it adds "giant" in a few places when the Hebrew word does not mean giant, and there is no evidence that giants existed at that time period.

Guess it balances out.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[jbh28]

You think maybe there is the name Jesus in a verse or two ahead that clarifies the "He" in those verses.

Exactly, when a pronoun is used, the context will let one know the antecedent.

Why not we just get write the book out in the original form without chapter and verse if we really want what the early church had, all was one continuous writting with no chapters and verses.

The chapters and verses are there to help us find passages. They shouldn't' be used to determine meanings.

By the way the very first verse you list Matthew 5:1 says He,

The NASB has "When Jesus saw the crowds"

Matthew 4:23 let you know who the He is so now you can go back and understand the Matthew 4:23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people says that the "He" in 5:1 is Jesus. Do we need to help you find the clarifying portions on all of it.

Of course not!

You can find fault in things you don't like, most people do that with folks they dislike, why not find what you like good about it and quit being so negative. We get it you don't like the KJV, I was raised reading it and still like it, you use what you like.

I think you missed my point and the point of the OP. I think the KJV is great. I don't dislike it at all. The point is that this chart that I showed, it totally meaningless! Just like the KJVO charts are meaning less. As you correctly pointed out, the context lets you know who is being spoken of. The point of my chart is to show how pointless these types of charts are. While the KJVO can show the NASB "removing" words, I can show the exact same in reverse.

 

[Logos1560]

I think you missed my point and the point of the OP. I think the KJV is great. I don't dislike it at all. The point is that this chart that I showed, it totally meaningless! Just like the KJVO charts are meaning less. As you correctly pointed out, the context lets you know who is being spoken of. The point of my chart is to show how pointless these types of charts are. While the KJVO can show the NASB "removing" words, I can show the exact same in reverse.

It has clearly been shown that the KJV-only charts repeated by one poster were misleading and did not prove what that poster asserted. Is it interesting that he refuses to face or deal with the facts that show the problems with his claims?

Evidently, he also cannot deal with the fact that other translations are clearer concerning the deity of Christ in some verses than the KJV is.

 

[Logos1560]

In another thread,

Originally Posted by Jaocb77
As for the MV I gave the facts, provided charts and not one of you gave any evidence to the contrary




The responses that you received in this thread contradict your assertion. You have been presented with evidence in this thread, but you have ignored it.

 

[revmwc]

Exactly, when a pronoun is used, the context will let one know the antecedent.

The chapters and verses are there to help us find passages. They shouldn't' be used to determine meanings. The NASB has "When Jesus saw the crowds" Of course not!

I think you missed my point and the point of the OP. I think the KJV is great. I don't dislike it at all. The point is that this chart that I showed, it totally meaningless! Just like the KJVO charts are meaning less. As you correctly pointed out, the context lets you know who is being spoken of. The point of my chart is to show how pointless these types of charts are. While the KJVO can show the NASB "removing" words, I can show the exact same in reverse.

Never seen or used a KJVO chart so I wouldn't know what you were using especially since I am not KJVO in belief, my point is we can point things out in all the versions that we may not agree with but what the focus should be is does it convey God's message.
The only reason I use the KJV is that is what I grew up using and it is easier to understand for me, if you prefer the NIV ot NAS then feel free to use it, if the translation takes away God's meaning then we need to discard that version. In studying numbers in scripture I happened upon the verse where Jesus sent out the 70 according to the interlinear and the KJV, but the folks that had the NIV and NAS both had 72 in the verse. Understanding the numbers in scripture it would be 70 which is spirtual completion with perfect order 7 x 10. Where as 72 would be Governmental perfection with man 12 x 6 in otehr words.

 

[sag38]

Those of the KJVOnly cult use charts to evaluate MV's. But, when those same methods are used to evaluate the KJV the KJVonlyist become scarce. These charts used by KJVonlyist are taking a beating here. Where are the chart users to defend their charts?
Note: I am very thankful for the KJV. I just don't believe that it is the exclusive Bible for English speaking people. So, don't think that I am for disparaging the KJV.