KJVO - Who actually wins? (Or: What is the real competition)

As I said, the multitude of manuscripts. The failure to consider all that God has preserved for us leads to problems.

 

I agree that God's word is pure and that we should not add or take away from it. Incidentally, immediately following Rev 22:19 is the greatest blocks of errors in the KJV because Erasmus did not have a Greek manuscript to work from. There are over a dozen errors in those few verses. If I get time later today, I will list them.

Let's assume for the moment that this is true -- By what standard are you going to judge what the pure word is?

I don't think this is true.

You have no jots and tittles in your KJV. They have all been taken out. Does that make it not the word of God or does that verse mean something else? Additionally, there are "jots and tittles" missing even from the Hebrew text. So my suspicion is that God meant something other than you mean by that.

I am not confused in the least by it. Of course, I have invested quite a bit of study in it and I hold Scripture as the final authority so there is no real reason to be confused. In my church, there is no one that is confused about it. I think the confusion is being caused by the KJOnly folks. In the real ministry where KJOnly is not espoused, there is no confusion.

 

No they were not lies in 1605 during the translating of the KJB. Nor were they lies prior to then either. They were truth in a different language and they are truth in English now.

</font>[/QUOTE]What language? Has the Bible in that language stopped being the word of God? How can it match perfectly with the KJV?

I agree. They are here. We have many excellent translations and thousands of manuscripts. The words are definitely preserved.

Ah, context is irrelevant. OK.

I know people who find the KJV confusing. Are you going to apply your own logic in this case too, or only when it suits your preconception?

 

Okay, Steve. The TNIV is bad. And the point of your post? I can't help it if you are stuck on Psalm 12:6-7 as your only Biblical support of your thinking. It is clear that what is addressed in that passage is the godly.

Neal

 

You are calling God a liar and don't even realize it! Psalms 12:6-7 Says, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Whoa, trigger! Easy on the rearin' up there fella! I understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your desire to stand up for the Word of God. But you;re taking a verse out of context. Psalm 12:6-7, if I remember correctly, is referring to the laws of the Torah, not the entire Bible as we know it, since none of the NT and much of the OT had not been written, or even compiled, when those words were penned.

I'm not calling God a liar. I DO, however, wish that well-meaning men and women would not add or detract from the original intent and purpose of the Biblical writings, which, in my opinion, id done whenever someone holds a translation up as though it were equal to the original. I don't care it it's KJV, NIV, RSV, PDQ, DMZ, or PCMCIA. It's not equal to the original.

 

what language did Jesus speak these words in?

Good question. Jesus, while he as a Jew could read and write Hebrew, spoke Aramaic, as was the primary language of that place and time. Amusing thing about the NT. It was written in Greek. Which means that it was a Greek record of what Jesus said in Aramaic (except for quotes from the OT, which he probably spoke in Hebrew). And yes, there are differences between the NT Greek and the Aramaic that was spoken at the time. So even with the NT, there are some places where it's fitting to ask what Jesus actually said, as opposed to what the NT writers actually penned. This is where a really good bible study would come in handy. Not to mention a crash course in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

Or, follow Author's advice and forget which version is the best: Use what you have and thank God every day for it.

[ January 21, 2003, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

In no way. Psalm 12:6-7 never referred to the preservation fo God's words. It was a twisting of Scripture to make it such.

Another unfortunate statement that would not be made by someone who is familiar with the facts. The majority of manuscripts were not rejected; they are in fact considered as any look at a modern Greek text will show. The eclectic text is not dependent on "just two manuscripts." All manuscripts evidence was considered. These two manuscripts are rejected many times by the modern eclectic text. Lastly, all modern translations are unequivocally not derived from the Westcott and Hort text. They are mostly translated from either the NA or the UBS text, both of which are significantly different from the WH text.

Unfortunately, there are a great many people writing about this who have no clue what they are talking about, as demonstrated by this little article. And even more unfortunately, their writings and ideas are promoted by those who likewise do not know. Mr. Daniels needs to get his facts straight, as do those who post these references. We need to deal in truth, friends.