37818
Well-Known Member
They also do not always follow that. Also the most common reading is the most likely reading. 99.6%
Last edited:
-
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!
The Bible Agnostic Test.
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi JesusFan. The KJB has never changed its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts like the ESV, NASB, NIVs all do. They just corrected some spelling errors and typos. There never was a real "revision" like an overhaul of its texts. Any Cambridge King James Bible you can get at any bookstore today is the only complete and 100% true words of God in the English language.
Are you willing to admit that fact that you (like most members here) simply do NOT really believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and 100% true words of God?
And as for John 1:18 the modern versions are a mass of confusion and uncertainty. Guess who wants things to be this way. The "Yeah, hath God said?" syndrome so widespread today.
JOHN 1:18
KJB - "No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the BOSOM of the Father, he hath declared him."
NASB 1962 to 1995 editions, Legacy Standard 2021 - "No one has seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the BOSOM of the Father, He has explained Him."
NASB 2020 edition has now changed its text once again after some 10 different editions. It now reads: “No one has seen God at any time; GOD THE ONLY SON, who is in the ARMS of the Father, He has explained Him.” - NO Greek text reads this way.
ESV 2011 edition - "No one has ever seen God; THE ONLY GOD, who is at the Father's SIDE, he has made him known."
ESV 2025 updated edition - “God the only Son” - again, NO Greek text reads this way.
NIV 1973 edition - "No man has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONLY SON, who is at the Father's SIDE, has made him known.
NIV 1984 edition - "No one has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, who is at the Father's SIDE, has made him known."
NIV 2011 edition - "No one has ever seen God, but THE ONE AND ONLY SON, WHO IS HIMSELF GOD and is IN CLOSEST RELATIONSHIP with the Father, has made him known."
The reading followed by the NASB 1995 edition teaches that there are TWO Gods. Count 'em. There is the unseen God and then there is the only begotten God who declares the invisible God no one has seen.
The new NASB 2020 now reads like the NIV 1973 edition, which they have twice since then rejected, and there is NO Greek text that reads "God the only Son."
The ESV is utter confusion and contradiction. There we have the unseen God, and then there is the only God, who makes the unseen God known. Hellooo.......Is anybody home in there?
The NIVs have THREE different translations of this one verse, and the modern versions don't even agree among themselves.
See the whole article on this verse here and why the KJB is right, as always.
Another King James Bible Believer
37818
Well-Known Member
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, 00.1% mss of John.
ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, 00.3% mss of John.
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, 99.0% mss of John.
Last edited:
Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh?
Seems like the KJV underwent several revisions, but you ignore them, make unfounded excuses why they were not considered revisions.
Inerrant:
free from error
incapable of being wrong
If a religious book is inerrant, it contains no faults or mistakes (from Cambridge dictionary)
not erring; making no mistakes; infallible
None of these can the KJV meet, seeing all the revisions they went through.
Your double standard, see hypocrisy, is duly noted.
Last edited:
Will J. Kinney said:
That's a good one! No, I don't think the NKJV Is the same as the 1611 KJV. They are indeed not the same in loads of verses.Titus 2:13, KJV. 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savioue Jesus Christ.'
Titus 2:13, NKJV. 'Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
2 Peter 1:1, KJV. '.... To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
2 Peter 1:1, NKJV.' '.... To those who have obtained [margin: 'received'] like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
So here are two places where the NKJV bears witness to the Deity of Christ and the KJV denies it, as do almost all te more modern versions. But you will be pleased to learn that there is another Bible translation that supports the KJV: the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses!
There are two reasons for this: the more honourable one is that the Granville Sharp Rule would not be established for another 150+ years. The less honourable one is that the translators of the KJV consulted the Greek grammar manual written by George B. Winer, a Unitarian.
99% verses 0.3%?
Yes! Unitarians use the KJV to denounce the deity of Jesus Christ.
Titus 2:13, KJV. 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savioue Jesus Christ.'
Titus 2:13, NKJV. 'Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
2 Peter 1:1, KJV. '.... To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
2 Peter 1:1, NKJV.' '.... To those who have obtained [margin: 'received'] like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
So here are two places where the NKJV bears witness to the Deity of Christ and the KJV denies it, as do almost all te more modern versions. But you will be pleased to learn that there is another Bible translation that supports the KJV: the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses!
There are two reasons for this: the more honourable one is that the Granville Sharp Rule would not be established for another 150+ years. The less honourable one is that the translators of the KJV consulted the Greek grammar manual written by George B. Winer, a Unitarian.
You do not prove your opinion to be true. What Bishop Thomas Bilson claimed to be the underlying text for the KJV's rendering at 1 Corinthains 12:28 was changed in 1629.
One clear example of a 1611 edition reading/rendering that has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printer would be at 1 Corinthians 12:28. According to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon, one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates to the text prepared by the KJV translators involved 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Six Sermons, p. 25). Since the 1611 edition’s rendering “helps in governments” is said to be introduced intentionally by a prelate or prelates, it cannot soundly be assumed to be the fault of the printer.
“Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”
Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).
In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 edition with Miles Smith, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Thomas Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). John Stoughton wrote: “Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, is particularly mentioned in the manuscript of Bois as engaged upon this final revision, though he was not one of the originally appointed translators” (Our English Bible, p. 247). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).
Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government, making it a change with doctrinal implications? Did Bishop Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their positions of authority to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government? What truth of the original demanded that this doctrinal change be introduced into the 1611 edition? KJV-only author Andrew Steers wrote: “[Archbishop] Bancroft made several textual changes of his own to the translation before it went off to the royal printer” (Is There Not, p. 247). In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that George Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, George Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103).
Lloyd Streeter asserted: “Every time a doctrinal word is added, subtracted, or changed it impacts doctrine in a destructive and harmful way” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 29). Could the 1611 edition’s reading/rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 be soundly considered to contain a change purposefully and intentionally inserted into the text for doctrinal reasons? Did Bishop Thomas Bilson not only have motive to support what he claimed is his 1593 book but also have opportunity and authority to review and revise the translators’ work according to the plan for its making? Was the underlying textual authority of the 1611 for this deliberate reading and rendering [supposedly Chrysostom] at 1 Corinthians 12:28 in the 1611 edition kept unchanged in the 1629 Cambridge edition or was a textual change made to the 1611 edition in 1629? Would a textual change to the 1611 edition at 1 Corinthians 12:28 not be an authorized textual change “because the team that did the work was disbanded” in 1610 (McElroy, Which Bible, pp. 217, 176)?