• 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!

KJV's Textual Error

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Yet again, parroted mantras:

Yeshua1 said:
No Easter in Acts
Click to expand...

That's basically German for "resurrection".

Easter | Origin, History, Name, Facts, & Dates

Is the Name “Easter” of Pagan Origin?

Yeshua1 said:
Holy Spirit not an it
Click to expand...

Gabriel calls the Son of God a thing:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Want to correct angelic prince Gabriel maybe? Tell him how your scholarly opinion trumps his, or how you're more royal than the King and won't have him call his Spirit it sometimes.

Yeshua1 said:
Jesus called both our great God and Savior by Peter and Paul
Click to expand...

That's because he is both...
 
Stratton7

Stratton7

Member
Yeshua1 said:
the 1769 was more of a revision then the NKJV, so why is it accepted as legit, by KJVO. but reject the Nkjv?
Click to expand...
Why must you turn everything into a KJO topic?
The thread is about a supposed error in the KJB (which I disagree that it is). Not about what the KJO accepts.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
The evidence is overwhelming against you on this. Almost all different branches of manuscripts back the KJV here. Only a few very faulty manuscripts support your reading here. Perhaps another look at the evidence is in order?
Click to expand...

Firstly, it is NOT correct to suggest "The evidence is overwhelming against you on this"!

The earliest Greek manuscripts that include the words as part of the Epistle, are Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, both of the 4th century. And the Codex Alexandrinus, of the 5th. It is also part of ther text in the Old Latin, 2nd century, and the majority of ancient Versions, including the Latin Vulgate, 4th cent. Origen in the Greek, 3rd cent.

The oldest Greek manuscript that omits the words, is the Codex know as K, which dates from the 9th cent. ONE manuscript of the Old Latin, a few of the Latin Vulgate. And ONE of the Coptic! That is it!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
MB said:
The KJV was translated from over 5000 manuscripts
Click to expand...

The earlist Greek manuscript that omits the words, dates from the NINTH century! There can be a million that omit the words, but they are of a very LATE date! Get your facts right before posting nonsense!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
The 1598 Beza edition was followed heavily by the original 1611 translators, not later revisers of 1789 which followed Stepens 1550. Those words were not in all the other editions of the Textus Reptus, that's why they printed the words in italic, knowing that Beza got the words from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The words may or may not belong, but the 1611 translators were honest, knowing Beza got it from the Latin. Scriveners TR was made from the KJV, which is why he has the words, because the KJV has the words, although in italic.
Click to expand...

The KJV is NOT a new translation of the Bible, but a REVISION! In any case it is WRONG here as it is elsewhere.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
Just to be clear, are you criticizing the KJV for including the words in italic or for putting the words in italic? Either way, the 1611 was honest with the evidence.
Click to expand...

to have the words in italics, is to show that they are not part of the Original Autograph, but added at a later date!
 
M

MB

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
The earlist Greek manuscript that omits the words, dates from the NINTH century! There can be a million that omit the words, but they are of a very LATE date! Get your facts right before posting nonsense!
Click to expand...
You seem to really hate the KJV don't you?
MB
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
MB said:
You seem to really hate the KJV don't you?
MB
Click to expand...

You just don't like facts! It is nothing to do with "hating" the KJV, but, as this is the only Version that has a following that are deluded into thinking, KJVO, like no other ever counts, it is important to show that it is only an uninspired translation like the others! You make accusations and then fail to provide any real evidence to back it up, like some others also do! Why not try to prove the OP wrong instead?
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Fine. What was one of my statements that leads you to conclude that to be the case. And why was that statement false.
Click to expand...

because you seem to always ignore the actual textual evidence, when it is against the KJV, and claim that the "majority" of very late Greek manuscripts must be right, because Wilbur Pickering says so! He is wrong, and you are.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
MB said:
Prove it if you can.
MB
Click to expand...
The NKJV accurately reads 'passover' in Acts 12:4 where the KJV incorrectly reads 'Easter'. The NKJV accurately reads "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10 while the KJV incorrectly reads "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in that verse. The NKJV correctly reads "You shall not MURDER" in Ex. 20:13 while the KJV incorrectly reads "thou shalt not KILL" in that verse.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's why modern Bible translations are made with an eclectic mix of manuscripts. After all, there are more than 5K mss. available, and we cannot judge one over the other as GOD preserved them all. And the KJV was made with only 20 or so mss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top