The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

I have shown you that believing that the KJB is perfect,and infallible goes back much farther.

No, you haven't. All you've shown us are a couple of quotes by men who had no other English BV available, and who were referring to God's word.


I have reminded you that ALL "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)from bogus Papal manuscripts conflict one another in THOUSANDS of places..

No; all you've expressed is opinion and guesswork. You haven't proven which mss are bogus nor which ones are "official". You've simply told us which ones you THINK are incorrect.

As for the differences between mss & BVs, the KJV clashes with itself. Did David pay Araunah 50 silver shekels or 600 gold shekels? Did both thieves revile Jesus, or did one of them ask Him to save him?

Look,ALL of 200+ Laodacean "bibles" and the Protestant Bibles cannot be God's word:"HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWPINIONS?"

1. HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you proven even ONE ms wrong?

2. It appears you're stuck in another false doctrine-that silly SDA invention of "church ages". I believe you're smart enough to know all the churches to whom Jesus had John send letters existed simultaneously, and that all 7 types of those churches exist today. That "church age" doctrine is a pure LIE, and you need to drop it like a hot potato before it burns you. But then I'm not surprised that a person stuck in one false doctrine(Onlyism) becomes stuck in another one.


And I have posted scripture PROVING that God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him;

How silly and completely of the subject this is. Please post JUST ONE SCRIPTURE in support of KJVO.


God will not bless the new "bibles"! How do I know that? Because He has not YET.

Now you're growing desperate, as by that above criterion you posted, you don't believe Jesus will return because He hasn't YET. However, I KNOW you believe He WILL return, same as I do, because HE SAID SO. Therefore, you're applying the great KJVO double standard here; you're also assuming that because something hasn't happened YET, that it never will.


You have done no such thing.People have been trying that baloney for years,nothing positive yet.

OK, show us an ancient Greek ms that has the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4. Also, please address some of the booboos brought up by others on this board.


Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Not one word about Onlyism...


Again,you have brought nothing profitable to the table;just APING the opinion,and rhetoric of others that is as vile today as the day it was founded.....

I don't see one word disproving anything we nonOnlyists have said. Not one word...

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

All you've shown us are a couple of quotes by men who had no other English BV available,

Thats a lie;there was other English translations available that were from Papal manuscripts.

Did David pay Araunah 50 silver shekels or 600 gold shekels? Did both thieves revile Jesus, or did one of them ask Him to save him?

The problem is NOT with God's word(KJB),the problem is with it's critics..

It appears you're stuck in another false doctrine-that silly SDA invention of "church ages".

We'll see;2nd Corinthians 5:10 is a comin'. I'm ready!!!!!

How silly and completely of the subject this is.

Oh,I see.So now God bearing witness to the things of God is "silly" now eh? Problem is,you cannot prove that wrong.....

Please post JUST ONE SCRIPTURE in support of KJVO.

I DID!!!!!!!! "KJVO" was conjured up by Bible Agnostics who want to place SCHOLARSHIP and THEMSELVES above "thus sayeth the Lord."

you're also assuming that because something hasn't happened YET, that it never will.

After 200+ conflicting "bibles" and 123 years it has not happened;and never will!!!

OK, show us an ancient Greek ms that has the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4.

Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???

Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Not one word about Onlyism...

Done told ya,it is about Spiritual dicernment;not a man made smoke-screen(KJVO) to hide Bible Agnostics..


I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical..

I patiently await you answer.....

 

[Ed Edwards]

Anti-Alexandrian: "Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as
He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???"

DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!!
If it is added to a a non-KJV, then Jeremiah 36:32 applies.
If it is added to a KJV, then Revelation 22:18-19 applies.

Happy New Year anyway!!

While we are double standarding, ponder this:

Anti-Alexandrian: "I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical.. "

I challenge Anti-Alexandrian to give
ONE VERSE (from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) or combination of verses
that says or shows that Anti-Alexandrian
exists. Since one cannot, i shall henseforth
consider Anti-Alexandrian as NOT existing.
/ed flipps through his AMPLIFIED BIBLE
looking for verses that tell about
seperation and shunnin' /

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

I can tell you where you can get a perfect Holy Bible. It is called the Holy Bible, or sometimes referred to as the King James Bible.

Though it is an excellent 17th C. English translation, the KJV is demonstrably *not* "perfect" (in the sense of "being complete, flawless, and incapable of being improved.") Two illustrations will suffice.

(1) The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle σχιζομενους -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."

(2) The KJV lacks material which is clearly present in the original language texts. Example: Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic psalm (i.e., the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on). This acrostic feature is not preserved in the KJV even though the translators demonstrated elsewhere that they knew how to do it (see the acrostic Psalm 119). Since the KJV is capable of being improved by structuring Psa. 37 in such a way as to preserve its acrostic feature, it is not "perfect."

 

[tinytim]

THANK YOU A-A,

You just solidified my belief that to be a strong KJVO person is wrong in the sight of God.

God never uses double standards. He is always fair and just. I came to this board a few months ago looking for some answers... and boy did you give them to me. I have read (as you put it) a lot of baloney, but the answers that SOME KJVO people give takes the cake. There are a lot on this board that are KJVO and I really respect their opinion, because they try to show it with grace and honor. I was like that 2 yrs ago, but God opened my eyes and chastised me for making a version my God. He also let me know (through study, and fellow Christians) that condeming versions of the Bible is dangerous as they are God's Word.

AA I pray for you that your eyes will be opened (I'm not saying you're not saved, because I truly believe you are, but...)so you won't have to endure the same chastisement from God I had to.

God's message will stand the test of time, And will never pass away. But that doesn't mean that a particular version is perfect. Anytime you translate from one language to another something is lost.

Just think, if it hadn't been for "know it alls" at the tower of Babel, we would never have this problem. Don't accuse God for all the confusion of languages, Don't even give Satan credit, Give the credit where it is deserved...Our human pride.

Your Brother in Christ, Tim

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I and millions of other people have gotten saved through reading these new "Bibles." Sounds like God has been blessing them to me.

Yes, some people got saved after they read their modern versions, however their modern versions will not make them "mature" Christians.

At TTU and Liberty University, for example, some Christians and professors used their modern versions. They have "compromising" Christian professors who disliked the doctrine of separation. The Bible requires the doctrine of the separation. Are they sure that they are mature Christians?

Some homosexuals preferred the NIV more than any modern versions including the KJV. Are they sure that they are saved WITHOUT their repentance of sins - homosexual practice?

The Bible requires the faith and the repentance at the same time.

 

[robycop3]

Thats a lie;there was other English translations available that were from Papal manuscripts.

There was no other English translation in widespread use from C. 1644 till the 1880s. That's indisputable history. Look in any good encyclopedia.


Did David pay Araunah 50 silver shekels or 600 gold shekels? Did both thieves revile Jesus, or did one of them ask Him to save him?
The problem is NOT with God's word(KJB),the problem is with it's critics..

Then why don't you simply answer the question?


It appears you're stuck in another false doctrine-that silly SDA invention of "church ages". We'll see;2nd Corinthians 5:10 is a comin'. I'm ready!!!!!

First-the false "Church Age" doctrine is an invention of the false prophet William Marrion Branham.(1909-1965)It has been adopted by many of the Oneness pentecostals and some of the SDAs.

Second-Whe 2 Cor.5:10 comes to pass for you, what will you do if Jesus asks you, "Why did you fight against some versions of My word? Can I not present it any way I choose?"


How silly and completely of the subject this is.
Oh,I see.So now God bearing witness to the things of God is "silly" now eh? Problem is,you cannot prove that wrong.....

Wanna prove me wrong? Then simply provide ONE SCRIPTURE where God bears witness to KJVO. Shouldn't be too hard...


Please post JUST ONE SCRIPTURE in support of KJVO. I DID!!!!!!!! "KJVO" was conjured up by Bible Agnostics who want to place SCHOLARSHIP and THEMSELVES above "thus sayeth the Lord."

Yup! describes KJVO to a "T"...


you're also assuming that because something hasn't happened YET, that it never will.
After 200+ conflicting "bibles" and 123 years it has not happened;and never will!!!

Proof, please?


OK, show us an ancient Greek ms that has the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4. Read Jeremiah 36:32....God will add as He wills..Do you deny what the Bible(KJB) says???

Just answer the question, please. And if you can't find any manuscript proof, please show us by what authority the AV translators added those words.


Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Not one word about Onlyism...


Done told ya,it is about Spiritual dicernment;not a man made smoke-screen(KJVO) to hide Bible Agnostics..

Right. KJVO is a false, man-made doctrine. If you'd rather go with the invention of men, rather than the plain historical proof of what GOD has done concerning His word, be my guest...


I challenge you to give ONE VERSE(from ANY Greek manuscript or ANY Bible) that says that believing in scholarship,or believing what man says over God's word(KJB) is Biblical..

I patiently await you answer.....

Answer my questions first. And while you're busy inventing some answers, mull this over...we've PROVEN the man-made origin of modern Onlyism, linking it to Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" and to the authors who followed him, mostly copying his material while inventing some of their own. There can be no denying that KJVO is man-made. Please try to prove it's of GOD.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Askjo:

Yes, some people got saved after they read their modern versions, however their modern versions will not make them "mature" Christians.

Proof, please?

At TTU and Liberty University, for example, some Christians and professors used their modern versions. They have "compromising" Christian professors who disliked the doctrine of separation. The Bible requires the doctrine of the separation. Are they sure that they are mature Christians?[/b]

How about KJVO David Koresh?

Some homosexuals preferred the NIV more than any modern versions including the KJV. Are they sure that they are saved WITHOUT their repentance of sins - homosexual practice?

That has nothing to do with their choice of BV-it has to do with their spiritual condition. For every corrupt lifestyle involving use of a MV, we can show you just as many involving use of the KJV.

The Bible requires the faith and the repentance at the same time.

We anti-Onlyismists have faith that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING-and that He is NOT limited in how He presents His word to us by some silly cockamamie man-made myth. He presents His word AS HE CHOOSES.

Hmmm...Seems as if we've gotten away from the Old Latin subject of this thread...

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I patiently await you answer.....

Answer my questions first.

I KNEW you would "skank" out on that one;I did answer your questions,I cannot help if you lack the discernment to see that.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Scott, you actually bring up a couple of very good points. I will try to address them.

"So what you are telling me is that there isn't a single inerrant copy in the Greek? If, as you say, there is no complete perfect Word of God found in the original language, then how can you be certain that the KJV is perfect. What is there to compare it to?"

Good question Scott. Keep in mind that your side has the same problem, in fact, generally speaking, even more so since the overall evidence is far more on the KJB readings than those found in the nasb, niv, rsv, etc.

I believe the promises of God to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away. I look to history and the sovereignty of God to provide evidence as to where these words might be today. I look for a Bible that has no proven (not just alleged, but proven) errors.

I find history and God's sovereignty clearly on the side of the KJB. It is the only one based solely on the Hebrew texts in the O.T. and the Traditional Texts in the new. The nasb, niv, rsv, all depart often from the Hebrew and have proveable errors both factual and theological.

Only God can sort out the mess that is found in the remaining Greek mss. and I firmly believe He has done so in the KJB which has stood the test of time, while the mvs come on the scene and pass away after a few years, and prove themselves to be false witnesses.



Scott continues: "As I have said before, I believe that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. Internal and external evidence points to this. However, the fact that we do not have a single perfect Greek manuscript sure makes it seem that man has, throughout the years, made things "less perfect," because we are, indeed, given over to our sin nature. We make mistakes - we are human. It is a logically fallacious leap to move from not having a single perfect manuscript to the King James Version, moving from imperfect to perfect. We as scholars of the Word do our best to uncover what the original manuscripts look like, and we've found that some of what the KJV is based on comes from additions that were placed in there by well-meaning humans, but were still added on."

Scott, your whole argument here is based on sinful man, and entirely overlooks the supervising hand of God in preserving His words. You sound just like James White.

You cannot prove these "additions" you speak of, but I can sure prove clear additions or omissions found in the nasb, niv, rsv stuff. Your scholars are getting worse, not better.

Scott>>" Here is a follow-up question: Do you believe that the original texts were inspired by God and the "correct words of God." How do you know? How do you get from a level of perfection to 1500 years of imperfection back to perfection? Where in history did God mess up in his preservation of the Scriptures?
Okay, so there were a few questions. I really am interested to hear your answers, though."


I believe God has always had His pure words here on this earth. The main point of the Old Latin versions article was to point out that though we have only a few remaining, partial, and somewhat corrupted copies of these out of the hundreds if not thousands that once existed, they prove the existence of the KJB readings in the most debated places, and that these readings existed some 200 years before Vaticanus-Sinaiticus came on the scene. And these Old Latin versions were used up to and including the 1500's. Then, it is my belief, that God placed His perfect words in the English language of the KJB. Can I prove this to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not, but the general, overall picture points in the direction of the KJB as being where God has placed His words, - definitely not the nasb, niv, rsv stuff based on Westcott-Hort fabrications and departing from the Hebrew texts.

Our position is one of faith and actually believing what the Book says about itself. We do believe we have an infallible, inerrant Holy Bible, while the people on your side of this debate profess that no text and no translation, and no Bible is now the perfect, inspired, infallible word of God and that all have mistakes and errors and you guys nor your scholars can agree on much of anything except there is no infallible Bible anymore. So, which position do you think is more honorable to God and believes what He wrote?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Roby, you are not interested in hearing an explanation to the silly "contradictions" and alleged errors in the KJB. Your objections have been answered many times, but you continue to bring up the same stuff year after year. Here is the explanation you yourself have seen several times already, but for the benefit of those who might actually think you know what you are talking about, I will post it again.


Romans 11:4 "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to THE IMAGE OF Baal."

Some ignorantly accuse the King James Bible of being in error here for "adding" the words "to the image of", supposedly because these words are not in the Greek copies. This criticism exhibits both ignorance of how the Greek language works and hypocricy in that the other promoted modern versions do the same type of thing.

First of all, the KJB is not alone in saying "bowed the knee to the image of Baal." So also do the Geneva Bible of 1557, Cranmer's 1539 Bible, the Italian Diodati, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. Other modern versions like Today's English Version, and the New Life Version say: "bowed the knee to THE FALSE GOD Baal." The Worldwide English Version says: "bowed the knee to THE GOD IDOL BAAL."

Secondly, in the Greek language what we have here is the construction of a feminine definite article combined with a masculine noun Baal. The feminine article naturally implies some word of feminine gender. The word "image" is feminine in the Greek language. We see the same type of thing in the modern versions where an article implies something not explicitly stated. The Greek language is frequently an elliptical language, that is, it implies things not specifically stated. One of many such examples is found in 1 Corinthians 12:24 where we read: "For our comely PARTS have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that PART which lacked." The words "parts" and "part" are found in the modern translations as well as the KJB, yet strictly speaking, all we have in the Greek are articles with no corresponding nouns. The thing is, the nouns are implied in the elliptical Greek context.

Thirdly, if the modern version proponent is correct in saying the KJB is wrong for "adding" the words "to the image of" Baal, then he has the same problem with such versions as the NASB, NIV, and NKJV. In Acts 19:35 we read: "...what man is there that knoweth not how the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and OF THE IMAGE which fell down from Jupiter?"

Here, just as in the case of Romans 11:4, all the Greek has is a defininte article with no corresponding noun which modifies the name of the Goddess mentioned, yet the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all "add" the word IMAGE. So, to be consistent in this criticism of the KJB in Romans 11:4, this Bible critic would also have to toss out his NASB, NIV, NKJV as being in error, and say that all those noted scholars who put these versions together didn't know the Greek language as well as our Bible corrector.

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Archy, I remember you posting one boring thing after another at the Which Version club long ago, and it seems you have not changed your tactics. You still alter and "improve upon" the Bible according to your own understanding, and have no final authority but your own mind. Here you give another classic example of your methods.

"(1) The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle scizomenouV -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."

Well Archy, first of all the KJB is not alone in translating this word skizo as "opened" or "opening", for the Tyndale, NKJV, NASB, RSV,and ESV do so as well.

Secondly, we see that this is the force of the word here in Mark, because in the other two accounts found in Matthew and Luke, the Holy Ghost used the word anoigo (to open) instead of skizo as here. Thus demonstrating the force of the word in this context.

A participle has no particular tense, but is determined by the surrounding verbs, which in this case is "saw". You really should write your own bible version. That is the only way you will be satisfied.

Will K

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by robycop3:
How about KJVO David Koresh?

Was he saved?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Romans 11:4 "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to THE IMAGE OF Baal."

Some ignorantly accuse the King James Bible of being in error here for "adding" the words "to the image of", supposedly because these words are not in the Greek copies. This criticism exhibits both ignorance of how the Greek language works and hypocricy in that the other promoted modern versions do the same type of thing.

First of all, the KJB is not alone in saying "bowed the knee to the image of Baal." So also do the Geneva Bible of 1557, Cranmer's 1539 Bible, the Italian Diodati, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. Other modern versions like Today's English Version, and the New Life Version say: "bowed the knee to THE FALSE GOD Baal." The Worldwide English Version says: "bowed the knee to THE GOD IDOL BAAL."

The *vast* majority of English Bible translations (including the majority of pre-1611 English translations) do not add "the image of" to Rom. 11:4.

"...that have not bowed their knees before Baal." (Wycliffe, 1388)

"...which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Tyndale, 1534)

"...which have not bowed the knee to Baal" (corrected Geneva, 1599)

If a handful of other versions share the same inferior translation as the KJV, that doesn't make the KJV's translation a good one.

Secondly, in the Greek language what we have here is the construction of a feminine definite article combined with a masculine noun Baal. The feminine article naturally implies some word of feminine gender. The word "image" is feminine in the Greek language. We see the same type of thing in the modern versions where an article implies something not explicitly stated. The Greek language is frequently an elliptical language, that is, it implies things not specifically stated. One of many such examples is found in 1 Corinthians 12:24 where we read: "For our comely PARTS have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that PART which lacked." The words "parts" and "part" are found in the modern translations as well as the KJB, yet strictly speaking, all we have in the Greek are articles with no corresponding nouns. The thing is, the nouns are implied in the elliptical Greek context.

In the Greek LXX, there is no difference in meaning between "Baal" with the masculine article and "Baal" with the feminine article. They are interchangeable, and mean exactly the same thing -- "Baal," nothing more, nothing less. The following pairs of verses are instructive:

(1) "the high places"

KJV Numbers 22:41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine), that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.

KJV Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places *of Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind

(2) "the altar"

KJV Judges 6:25 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine) that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it:

KJV 2 Kings 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars *for Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

(3) "burning incense"

KJV 2 Kings 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

KJV Jeremiah 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense *unto Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and walk after other gods whom ye know not

It's evident from these passages that "Baal" with either the masculine or feminine article means "Baal," not "the image of Baal." This is also the case for the following pair of verses:

(4) "bowing the knee"

KJV 1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

KJV Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee *to [the image of] Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine).

Conclusion: the KJV has added to the word of God by adding "the image of" to Rom. 11:4.

Thirdly, if the modern version proponent is correct in saying the KJB is wrong for "adding" the words "to the image of" Baal, then he has the same problem with such versions as the NASB, NIV, and NKJV. In Acts 19:35 we read: "...what man is there that knoweth not how the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and OF THE IMAGE which fell down from Jupiter?"

Here, just as in the case of Romans 11:4, all the Greek has is a defininte article with no corresponding noun which modifies the name of the Goddess mentioned, yet the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all "add" the word IMAGE. So, to be consistent in this criticism of the KJB in Romans 11:4, this Bible critic would also have to toss out his NASB, NIV, NKJV as being in error, and say that all those noted scholars who put these versions together didn't know the Greek language as well as our Bible corrector.

The Greek phrase in Ac. 19:35 poses a challenge for English translators -- και του δεοπετους, which literally means "and of that which fell from Zeus," an obscure expression possibly referring to a meteorite fragment that was taken and turned into an image of Artemis. By contrast, the Greek of Rom. 11:4 is simple and crystal-clear -- "bowed the knee to Baal," and nothing more.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

"(1) The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle scizomenouV -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."

Well Archy, first of all the KJB is not alone in translating this word skizo as "opened" or "opening", for the Tyndale, NKJV, NASB, RSV,and ESV do so as well.

Again, the fact that some other English versions share the KJV's inferior translation doesn't make it any less an inferior translation.

Secondly, we see that this is the force of the word here in Mark, because in the other two accounts found in Matthew and Luke, the Holy Ghost used the word anoigo (to open) instead of skizo as here. Thus demonstrating the force of the word in this context.

The force of the word in Mark has nothing to do with what appears in Matthew and Luke and everything to do with what appears *in Mark* and with the plain meaning of the Greek word. Mark's Gospel deliberately uses the stong verb σχιζω which carries the sense of something being forcefully divided into two (look it up an any Greek lexicon). It's the same verb used in Mk. 15:38 to describe the tearing of the Temple veil at the moment of Jesus' death. These two occasions -- once at the beginning and once at the end -- are the *only* times in Mark's Gospel where this verb is used, and they "bracket" the Gospel to show how Jesus Christ our Mediator tears away barriers and grants us access to God. Mark 1:10 is also the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy in Isa. 64:1, "Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down..." Some English Bible translations like the Geneva and the NIV correctly render the forceful nature of the Greek verb and preserve the cross-references, while others like the KJV completely miss it in their inferior translation.

BTW, I notice you didn't comment on the KJV's failure to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37, even though it correctly preserved the acrostic feature of Psa. 119.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

BTW, I notice you didn't comment on the KJV's failure to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37, even though it correctly preserved the acrostic feature of Psa. 119.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archy, you would say the same thing. "Well, because other versions don't do it right either, that doesn't make the KJB right."

You are a marvel to behold. Neither the NASB, NIV, nor the NKJV make Psalm 37 an acrostic either, but since it is your own mind that is your final authority, I guess they all got it wrong too.

Go for it Arch. Write your own bible version. I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes and will be widely received with open arms and enthusiastic applause. After only 200 different English versions in the last 100 years, what the world needs now is another one.

Will K

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I patiently await you answer.....

Answer my questions first.

I KNEW you would "skank" out on that one;I did answer your questions,I cannot help if you lack the discernment to see that. </font>[/QUOTE]No you didn't; you merely posted the same ole 70-yr-old Onlyist party line that was torpedoed years ago. You have NOT addressed the questions of total lack of Scriptural support of KJVO, and the differences between all English BVs in the face of God's promise to preserve His word. You have NOT addressed the fact that JESUS HIMSELF and His apostles used another version of the OT besides the one translated into today's Bibles.

Since this thread is about some Old Latin mss, perhaps you'd like to discuss this elsewhere, but the reality is that the results will be the same-the Onlyist simply will NOT answer a question directly.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

BTW, I notice you didn't comment on the KJV's failure to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37, even though it correctly preserved the acrostic feature of Psa. 119.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archy, you would say the same thing. "Well, because other versions don't do it right either, that doesn't make the KJB right."

Please remember that the issue here is your earlier claim that one particular version, the KJV, is "perfect" (i.e., "complete, incapable of being improved.") The fact that the KJV fails to preserve the acrostic feature of Psa. 37 is one of many specific instances where the KJV is demonstrably incomplete and could be improved. Therfore, your claim about the "perfection" of the KJV is demonstrably false. It's that simple.