Missing verses?

That is true. In fact, you don't base you rejection of modern versions on anything scriptural or scripturally supportable whatsoever. Hence, your categorical rejection of such is without scriptural merit.

 

philip: "I think it would be an excellent idea to teach Greek and maybe Hebrew (but especially Greek) in Sunday School classes."

In our area I know of at least one local Baptist church that has a Greek SS class for laypersons, covering the text of the Sunday School lesson from an interlinear along with various lexical word studies, etc. (taught by someone who knows his Greek quite well). I sat in on that class once, when visiting that church, and was quite impressed with the enthusiasm shown by the ca. 20 class members, which was *far* higher than what I tend to see in most English-based SS classes.

 

Agreed. However, your aguement does not support KJVOism, since the KJV is not written in our native English language. It is written in a form of ENglish that is not longer used. Your arguement does, however, support the idea of having a translation on our native language. THe best selling bible today, the NIV, is such a translation.

Make up your mind. God's word that he gave us first in our language is Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Your arguement here supports studying the source texts languages and refutes KJVOism.

The more and more you post, the more and more you refute the KJVO position.

 

Michele, do you speak Elizabethan English? I think not. The Bible has to be read and understood by todays people, too. There is no feasibility to your argument. God has indeed provided HIS word for us in the English language in many different translations.

 

The last few posts have nothing to do with "missing verses." Shall we return to topic please?

 

The point is that the KJVO arguement of "missing verses" is refuted by KJVOism itself. Since the source texts for most "modern versions" predate the source texts for the KJV, the only argument that the KJVOist can make is that the KJV has added verses to scripture, not vice verse. KJVOists will sometimes claim that the KJV adding verses is acceptible, however.

 

Well Hank,


You can believe whatever you so desire to believe. I have made it clear, my reasons, time and time again, to which you try to make it seem as though I, and many others are showing double standards and throwing "tantrums", to which we are not in the least - although I am sure there probably are some who do. I also explained to you why I thought why I did concerning the NIV's overusage of "the Christ" only on a continual basis, WITHOUT Jesus Christ following - yet you choose to ignore this part. This is cause for concern, as it is done to an extremely abunadant level, as more than the underlying text allows, which CAN CAUSE for "conditioning" of New Age terminologies in this ever increasing apostacy within the churches and takes our Lord Jesus's name out more than it should. And as I have said, this is not the SOLE REASON for my rejection of it, nor my warning of against it - just a cause for serious concern.

I am not on here to suit any personal purpose, as you like to so make it seem. You can believe the reason's why I share with you what I do, with the reasons I give, or you can think that I am lying. In any case, this matters not to me, as I could care one iota what you think of me, nor your assumptions as to why I come here and share with you what I do. I do care however, that you try to make it seem to others as though my intentions of coming here are for personal reasons, to which is not the truth at all. Do you think this is a joyful and fun thing for me to do? <False accusation against an adminstrative decison snipped>NO, it is not pleasant one bit, but I continue because I first love the Lord and his truth with all of my heart, and I love others enouph to share the truth with them concerning this issue, and others the Lord has so wonderfully given to my understanding. I also am blessed by the Lord through many others also, as I also learn from others in things I lack understanding in.

Again, you try to compare two things, that have no comparison whatsoever. WE are commanded to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints, and that, my dear brother, is what I am doing.

You also accused me of making ad hominum attacks in my posts, when you your very self are guilty of this very thing. I do not judge you on this, however you are the first one to point out judgement upon me for this, and throwing scriptures in my face, when you are the one guilty of judging unrighteous judgement. You think you are not guilty at all of ad hominum attacks? Think again dear brother. Think again before you judge me, when you yourself are guilty of that very same thing!


Again, you claim that God has made errors. I have not. You claim I accuse God of making errors. I have not. I have claimed men have made errors, and God has corrected them. This was done, and they were not the same TYPE of errors, nor REASONS for the errors, as we see in the modern versions. Like I continue to say, you compare two completely different things, and try to make it seem as though they are the same. Why? Because many of you so desire to show double standards on our part, where there is none. It is called desperation, and I ask why this desperation to this level? I will let you decide. I have my own opinion as to why.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ January 25, 2005, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

---------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind. God's word that he gave us first in our language is Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Your arguement here supports studying the source texts languages and refutes KJVOism.

--------------------------------------------------


Can you please try to understand what I write, instead of assuming? What I said here, and what should have had a comma, was that we should understand God's word first - not what He gave us first, to which is literally for me personally, in my OWN LANGUAGE, not in a language I do not understand. I was not talking about what language God gave his word in first. That is irrelevant. It is his word in one's own language that he provided that matters. Stop putting the languages on a pedastal, and you will go far. God is the creator of ALL languages, and has the same power and authority in and over them ALL, and He is not just limited to one or two.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In Hebrews 2:9 the KJV is missing a very important phrase though it is in all Greek koine msss.

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

NAS Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

There is quite a difference between Jesus being made a little lower than the angels and Jesus being made lower than the angels for a little while.

The KJV confounds the doctrine of the Kenosis of Jesus Christ by leaving out the fact that the lowering of Jesus was only for a "little while".

They have in fact provided the JWs with one of their "proof texts" in their claim that Christ is a created being.

The NASB and the RSV leaves no doubt and in this case the deity of Christ is not compromised.

BTW the phrase "little while" is brachu ti and is present in all koine mss. Nevertheless the KJV translators dropped it.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
The point is that the KJVO arguement of "missing verses" is refuted by KJVOism itself. Since the source texts for most "modern versions" predate the source texts for the KJV, the only argument that the KJVOist can make is that the KJV has added verses to scripture, not vice verse. KJVOists will sometimes claim that the KJV adding verses is acceptible, however.
--------------------------------------------------


Well there is some truth to this statement, but then much untruth in it also. Even though it is true that the texts that underline the mv's date as the earliest manuscripts, the false comes in when one believes that because of this fact alone, makes them the most accurate. Very false thinking, and very dangerous thinking. Older does not necessarily relate to most accurate. IN fact, specifically dealing with the word of God, the TRUTH would be found most likely in the history of the churches, since the churches are the ground and pillar of the truth. The truth is not found in some ancient manuscript as accurate and reliable, based solely on this fact alone, and is in fact very unreliable. The truth has always been in the churches, and always will. God's word has been altered as has been revealed by those texts, to which come from one area of the globe only, rather then the entire globe as does the texts that underline the KJB and others.


Hint: Older does not mean better, nor does it mean more accurate. This is a lie that is being believed, and leading many astray from the truth in this very issue.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Can we PLEASE get back on the subject. I, for one, am getting tired of hijacked threads where scholarly discussion was taking place.

Okay, we are talking about missing verses. Obviously, this has to do with source documents and has little to do with how the Bible is being translated. We are back, once again to which are the most accurate of the source documents.

It is so difficult to define the sources used in the KJV since it is an outgrowth of the Bishop's (and as quoted by King James' very own translators in the front of the 1611 version, an upgrade of previous translations - using my own paraphrase.)

I would assume that this discussion is primarly linked to the New Testament.

The problem is that we CAN define verses that are missing, but it is difficult to determine with exactness considering that all manuscripts differ in some form or another and the only choice is modern textual criticism and comparison of the manuscripts available to us.

Since the KJV used portions of the Vulgate to fill in missing blanks, then it must be considered also as legitimate source manuscript, but only for the purposes of determining what is missing or what has been added.

I guess my whole point here is that determination of missing or added verses (either way) goes right back to the original thread I started on which manuscripts are the most accurate and which compilation of those manuscripts are the closest to the original manuscripts.

There is obviously a reason that we do not have the original manuscripts today. Maybe it is to show that God's Word IS indeed dynamic and prevent people from worshipping the Greek/Hebrew/or Aramaic manuscripts if we knew which ones were perfect.

Thoughts?

 

HankD, I wasn't trying to step on your post there. You were on subject, sorry. I posted after you did. Sorry, was not referring to your last post.
Phillip

 

I agree. The NIV is scripture in my own language. It is difficult to understand KJV English without studying the Elizabethan English. Your comment, as I said, refutes KJVOism.

Then how do you know scripture is God-breathed? You know this because the Greek phrase translated in the KJV as "inspired" means "God-breathed". If you were to insist on KJVOism, you would have to disregard the Greek in favor of the English, and hence are unable to make that determination about scripture being God-breathed.

That has been my advice to KJVOists for years. Your own words once again refute KJVOism.

Then you should have no problem with the existence of multiple translations. Again, your own words refute KJVOism.

 

I never said I wasn't.

Excellent, however, you have falsley accused me again, I asked you the question concerning where the responsibility lay, I did not accuse you. It was a rhetorical type question which you yourself have used over the several months.

These same men who made the errors corrected these errors. BTW then does that mean that the 1611 First Edition King James Bible was not the pure Word of God? How about the passage where they flip-flopped changing it back and forth over the years, who did that, God or the KJV translators.

Because in reality they are the same. God is not capable of making an error of any TYPE. Revisions to the KJV were made in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769. Which revision contains the "pure" words of God?

Why not give it?

HankD

 

Since this was brought up. Yes, God is the creator of all languages, but God chose to have His Words written in Koine Greek, Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Since word for word translation into other languages is impossible then we have to understand that the ancient languages will be the closest to the "real deal". So, for DEEP study, we MUST go to the source languages. Otherwise, we would have to believe in latter day revelation of 1769 and just as Forrest Gump would say: "That's all I have to say about that."

The real issue here is verses LEFT out and/or verses added. We have to determine if verses were added to manuscripts also or we do not know "which" occurred.

Here we go again, which sources are the most accurate?

Scholars, correct me if I am wrong, but when translations leave out a verse, that verse is no doubt missing from the particular source document that was utilized by the translators. Does anyone know of any translators who left out verses that WERE in their source documents?

If so, I would consider it a grave error, unless they had some proof that the source had "added" words.

 

--------------------------------------------------
We rather need to *teach* those unlettered foreigners ENGLISH in order that they can then learn to read the Bible in its most perfect form.
--------------------------------------------------


What is being addressed is that EVERYONE in our language, as well as other languages ought to learn these languages in order to better understand - isn't this the same thing you accuse KJBO's of? . Nadda. Totally untrue and then you turn it to make me say something I have never said, nor do I condone - that people of foriegn languages need to learn English - never said, nor do I agree with this position. God gives certain people this calling that you speak of above, and is not meant for everyone. The Wycliff translators? Well, that is a completely different story altogether.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was not talking about what language God gave his word in first. That is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then how do you know scripture is God-breathed? You know this because the Greek phrase translated in the KJV as "inspired" means "God-breathed". If you were to insist on KJVOism, you would have to disregard the Greek in favor of the English, and hence are unable to make that determination about scripture being God-breathed.
--------------------------------------------------


Just some advice: Read Hebrews 11. Then I have this also for you:


1 John 5

1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
14. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
15. And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.


You can blow all the hot air you so desire, with my stand on faith, and the witness of and by the Holy Spirit of this truth as being "blind faith", but my faith is founded upon the scriptural truth and the witness of the Holy Spirit with my spirit.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Looking for "the Christ" shows 18 hits in the KJV1611 New Testament.

Looking for "the Christ" shows 19 hits in the KJV1769 New Testament.

Looking for "the Christ" shows 53 hits in the NIV New Testament.

Looking for "Iesus Christ" shows 188 hits in the KJV1611 New Testament.

Looking for "Jesus Christ" shows 189 hits in the KJV1769 New Testament.

Looking for "Jesus Christ" shows 135 hits in the NIV1 New Testament.

555 "Christ" in the KJV1611 minus 18 and minus 188
leave 349 "Christ" in the KJV1611 not associated
with the "the" nor the "Iesus".

532 "Christ" in the KJV1769 minus 19 and minus 189
leave 324 "Christ" in the KJV1769 not associated
with "the" nor "Jesus".

516 "Christ" in the NIV minus 53 and minus 135
leave 328 "Christ" in the NIV not associated
with "the" nor "Jesus".

Interesting, the KJV1769 drops "Christ" 23 times compared
to the KJV1611 and "Christ" without the "the" nor the "JEsus"
appears four times less in the KJV1769 than in the NIV.

Sorry, it appears like the KJV1769 scores third in the
"Jesus" department. This probably should not be so:

Philippians 2:10 (HCSB):

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow-- of those
who are in heaven and on earth and under the
earth-- 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

I'd say the KJV1769 should get with it!

 

OK.

HankD

 

This thread seems incapable of staying on topic - it will be closed on page five without notice if this trend continues.

The topic is "missing verses."