The "only" version?

[Logos1560]

the times when the made the great God and savior as referring to 2 seperate persons, but actually both refers to Jesus Himself!

This would be referring to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13.

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse?

 

[Yeshua1]

How does correctly translating the Greek neuter regarding the Spirit in the Greek being neuter as "it" have anything to do with the Lord Jesus and His deity?

It doesn't, but the Holy Spirit should never be called an It, and what about Titus 2:13 and 2 peter 1:1-2, Kjv seems to see it as being the father and Jesus, Nas as being Jesus called both God and Savior!

 

[Yeshua1]

This would be referring to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13.

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse?

The Nas correctly renders this as being a re3ference to jesus as being God and Savior, while the Kjv seemed to have 2 Persons in mind!

 

[robycop3]

Just to be clear, I shall repeat the post.

My position on the only version is which version keeps His words in discerning good and evil by so you can defend the faith in Jesus Christ. You can only discern that with Him. I cannot convince you. If you do not see anything wrong with your modern version of Romans 8:26-27 with the truth in John 16:13 in seeing how the KJV kept that truth aligned, then I can't help you.

John 16:13 says the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues to utter His own intercessions in all Bible Versions.

However, Romans 8:26-27 in most modern Bibles testify to the contrary, but the KJV does not.

If you guys still do not see anything wrong with the still, after asking Jesus for help to see the lie, then I can't help you see why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by. Only He can show why I do. So ask Him..

So, you ignore such glaring goofs in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, among others?

And remember - THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO HIMSELF GOD. What can He not do?

 

[robycop3]

I rely on Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd. After years of using the NASB and a daily Bible reading in the NIV, the Lord led me to use the KJV because of troubling verses that was going against the truth in other parts of scripture in those modern Bibles.

I have found the KJV on more than several occasions keeping the truths in His words that I just got fed up reading the Daily Bible reading in the NIV and just look at the selected references for the day ( not all of them ) and just read it in the KJV.

Again, only the Lord can confirm to you that the KJV is the one to rely on.

But there's not one quark orf SCRIPTURE supporting the KJVO myth. That doctrine is entirely man-made without any support from GOD whatsoever. Therefore, it's a myth and false.

Given the many, MANY meanings in English for a great number of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words, it's best to heed the words of the AV translators found in their preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611:

"Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

 

[Yeshua1]

But there's not one quark orf SCRIPTURE supporting the KJVO myth. That doctrine is entirely man-made without any support from GOD whatsoever. Therefore, it's a myth and false.

Given the many, MANY meanings in English for a great number of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words, it's best to heed the words of the AV translators found in their preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611:

"Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

They did not see their version as being perfect, as they were awaiting future believers to build upon theri work for a better transaltion, just as they upon prior versions!

 

[TCassidy]

THAT'S why I use the KJV very little!

LOL! Yeah! The modern versions never use words that are unknown to the readers.

Like the universally understood "slime of the purslane" in Job 6:6. Or "carnelian" in Rev. 4:3. And "porphyry" in Esther 1:6 certainly needs no explanation.

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL! Yeah! The modern versions never use words that are unknown to the readers.

Like the universally understood "slime of the purslane" in Job 6:6. Or "carnelian" in Rev. 4:3. And "porphyry" in Ester 1:6 certainly needs no explanation.

At least they did not use either Unicorn or easter!

 

[Rippon]

LOL! Yeah! The modern versions never use words that are unknown to the readers.

Like the universally understood "slime of the purslane" in Job 6:6.

I scanned BibleGateway and couldn't find that in any of the translations. What version has that phrase?

Or "carnelian" in Rev. 4:3.

Yes, quite a few translations have that word.

And "porphyry" in Esther 1:6 certainly needs no explanation.

You mean Esther. I found it in the ESV. Perhaps you would prefer feldspar as an alternative.

Your examples are not proving your case. And who has said that modern versions never use words that are unknown to readers?

In the grand scheme of things your examples are picayune. To make your case you have to have a greater degree of substance.

 

[TCassidy]

I scanned BibleGateway and couldn't find that in any of the translations. What version has that phrase?

RSV Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?

Your examples are not proving your case.

Sorry you didn't understand my "case."

And who has said that modern versions never use words that are unknown to readers?

Who has claimed anyone said such a thing?

In the grand scheme of things your examples are picayune.

Now you are starting to understand.

To make your case you have to have a greater degree of substance.

And what "case" is that?

 

[utilyan]

But there's not one quark orf SCRIPTURE supporting the KJVO myth. That doctrine is entirely man-made without any support from GOD whatsoever. Therefore, it's a myth and false.

Given the many, MANY meanings in English for a great number of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words, it's best to heed the words of the AV translators found in their preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611:

"Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

Of course KJV is the only real bible. See i got a book here says BIBLE and I open it and whataya know. Its the King James. So every other bible is false.

You can also confirm KJV is the only bible and opening up the to exact same page where it says the bible is the only authority, its the verse right below it.

 

[robycop3]

Of course KJV is the only real bible. See i got a book here says BIBLE and I open it and whataya know. Its the King James. So every other bible is false.

You can also confirm KJV is the only bible and opening up the to exact same page where it says the bible is the only authority, its the verse right below it.

Is that right above Hanukkah 12:96 which says, "Thou shalt have cardinals amongst ye; they shalt appoint a pope from their number who shalt speak for Me. Thou shalt obey him as if he were Me."

 

[robycop3]

LOL! Yeah! The modern versions never use words that are unknown to the readers.

Like the universally understood "slime of the purslane" in Job 6:6. Or "carnelian" in Rev. 4:3. And "porphyry" in Ester 1:6 certainly needs no explanation.

Well, they certainly don't use "conversation" for 'lifestyle' not "target" for 'small shield', nor "ouches" for 'brooch or precious stone setting'.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, they certainly don't use "conversation" for 'lifestyle' not "target" for 'small shield', nor "ouches" for 'brooch or precious stone setting'.

No, they just use words like "slime of the purslane" "carnelian"and "porphyry." LOL!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, they just use words like "slime of the purslane" "carnelian"and "porphyry." LOL!

I thought I heard terms like that in Charismatic churches when people were "prophezing"

 

[Rippon]

The term "modern version" needs to be defined. Does it mean at the very least the early 20th century? Does it mean since the mid-20th century, late 20th century, the turn of the 21st century?

The RSV's heyday was 70 years ago, hardly a modern version in my view.

 

[robycop3]

No, they just use words like "slime of the purslane" "carnelian"and "porphyry." LOL!

I see - so a woman with an ouch around her neck doesn't necessarily need Excedrin to improve her conversation? And divers places don't sell SCUBA gear?

 

[TCassidy]

I see - so a woman with an ouch around her neck doesn't necessarily need Excedrin to improve her conversation? And divers places don't sell SCUBA gear?

I realize this is very difficult for you, but I will try to explain it one more time.

You complained that a pastor had to stop and explain the meaning of some words as he preached from the bible. You used this to demean the KJVO position.

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the preacher using any of the modern versions will also have to stop and explain those words I listed.

Let me give you some cliches from my upbringing:

"What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

"Turn about is fair play."

"The shoe is on the other foot."

Got it now? Don't criticize the KJV (or the KJVO) for doing the same thing the modern versions do. It just makes you look bigoted.

 

[Rippon]

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the preacher using any of the modern versions will also have to stop and explain those words I listed.

The examples you used were pitifully picayune.

Common sense will tell anyone that preaching from the KJV, of any stripe, will require a lot more explaining of the old English text than a more modern version. But I realize that common sense isn't that common in some parts.

Got it now? Don't criticize the KJV (or the KJVO) for doing the same thing the modern versions do.

As I indicated : there is no comparison.

 

[robycop3]

The term "modern version" needs to be defined. Does it mean at the very least the early 20th century? Does it mean since the mid-20th century, late 20th century, the turn of the 21st century?

The RSV's heyday was 70 years ago, hardly a modern version in my view.

Some people define the KJV's English as "modern". I reckon those same people would define the Model T as a :"modern" auto.

I once drove a 1912 Model T from Portsmouth OH to Cincy. Once the excitement & novelty of driving a 100-er-old car wore off, it was a tedious task driving it on 4-lane roads with a 70 MPH speed limit. It felt like it had crowbars for shocks, & had to use fuel additive when filling up. (It was made to run on LEADED gasoline.) And I almost got pistol-whipped by the crank starter once cuz I held the crank a split second after the engine started. Had to double-clutch to shift gears in town driving. Windshiwld wipers, which I had to use for about 5 minutes were hand-operated.