standingfiriminChrist, Maybe I'm missing something, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Does this have something to do with what Dr. Cassidy said?
As I said, when I clicked on the link on the report sent to the moderators it said the link is no longer any good. That tells me it has already been edited out--probably by C4K.
As for your information on manuscripts I know not what you are trying to do.
It is well known that in certain cases verses have been added to try to harmonize certain portions of the Bible, such as the gospels. One such example is where Jesus said, Get thee behind me Satan. It is thought by many scholars that since it said it in one gospel, the other ought to reflect the same thing. Therefore it was added. Without it, the Bible still carries the same message.
Have you actually read all the way through an MV such as the ESV, NASB, NIV? If you will read all the way through, you will find out that none of these, in particular are watered down in the slightest. In fact, the whole point of the translations is to bring forward the history of the Jewish race through the birth and Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who gave his life for our sins. My NIV says it. My NASB says it and my ESV says it and none of them beat around the bush about their message.
I must say that I have to side with Dr. Bob and say that I too wish the KJVO myth were eliminated from the board. It would be MUCH more peaceful here.
Let me clarify one thing. NONE of us hate or attack the King James Version, particularly the 1769 version. It is a VERY accurate translation, but it does have its limitations. Those are, many, many words are not used the same today so a youngster reading it will misunderstand many of the verses.
Second, many cannot read the archaic English because they didn't grow up reading it like I did.
Even though I grew up reading the KJV and still do on occasion, I find myself gravitating toward an MV simply because when I'm tired it is SOOOOOO much easier to understand.
My favorite, the NASB due to its Word-for-Word translation, second favorite ESV, which is closer to reality with just enough Word-for-Word and a little dynamic mix to make it more understandable.
There is simply NO, NONE, NADA scriptures that say that we will have one and one only translation in English and that we must all learn 17th century English in order to read it.
If we go for time and use, then the Latin Vulgate wins hands down.
Nobody can yet answer me what Bible was the 100% word-for-word translation that people claim the KJV to be, before the year of 1611.
If the Bishop's Bible was adequate, then why another translation?
And I suppose that English just happened to be selected as the lucky language to win the prize of having the only correct version. After all according to Lifeway, we are translating about 200 versions in different languages every year. If this is true, I can guess that they don't all use the Majority Text.
I have NO problems with KJV preferred or Majority Text preferred. I will not speak for Dr. Bob, but I have a feeling he is the same way. It is the "ONLY" that is unbiblical.
