To those Affirming KJVO, was there the word of God before the 1611 Kjv then?

[Dave G]

My friend,
Compare the statements, " ...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means, to me, that Jesus did not think that He was stealing from God for Him to actually be equal with God )
to, " did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"( which is more ambiguous to me ), and I would hope that you see the glaring differences in their meaning.

To me, one declares, outright, Him being equal to God.
The others leave me confused, and asking the question, "what does the phrase, 'did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' actually mean"?
That Jesus was in the form of God, but did not think that He should hold on to it?
Or that He was in the form of God, but didn't think that He could attain to that level of equality?

Those differences above in wording ( how they read ) are a result of both translation method and translation accuracy when carrying over the Greek into the English, as well as their respective choices of which of the three existing collated Greek texts were used as a basis for that translation.

The AV used the "Textus Receptus", while both of the others used the "MGNT" ( Majority Greek New Testament ), which contains readings from Westcott and Hort's "Critical Text" ( which is based on mainly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are known to differ greatly even among themselves when compared to each other ).

Now, with what has been shown...
Which of them, overall, do you think does more to support the Deity of the Lord Jesus in the passage listed, and which do less?


When I carefully compare the statements above ( keeping in mind the textual foundations of all three, as well as how the respective translation teams chose to word each passage ), I see a marked difference between the AV and the other two...

The AV does more, and the other two do less... and that's just one example.

 

[Dave G]

@JesusFan :

To me, what's even more concerning when I see what transpires in discussions like this, is the overwhelming number of professing Christians out there that have been led to believe that we, as His people, haven't had His words perfectly preserved and provided for us down through the centuries...
By a God who loves us and sent His Son to die for us.

That, instead, we as His people are completely dependent upon a flawed and man-made process of never being able to determine what those words are, and that we still aren't there yet.


I'll be open and honest with you once again...
It seems to me that you don't really trust God to have preserved His words perfectly, but that you're trusting in men:

That you've been convinced by a man-made "not yet" system that delivers on false promises...
That someday "we'll get there" and that we "will have" God's words in their entirety;
That the Bible is still "in development" and that the efforts of God in preserving those words are dependent upon flawed men in order to preserve them...
and not His own power over ( and in spite of ) flawed men.

What's more,
I would have thought that a man who believes so much in the sovereignty of God and the immense power that He has over both us and over His creation, would naturally trust that He has this under His control also;
That despite the storm of violence and corruption around us, He is our Rock and He will provide all that we need in this short life... before we go to be with Him.


Honestly, I am sad for most professing believers today;
Because to me, they've been deceived into thinking that the ever-changing Greek NA / UBS apparatus is something that the Lord Himself is sponsoring...


And not someone who is masquerading as the Lord and seeks to deceive His people into not trusting Him, and Him alone.

 

[Dave G]

That said,
I take my leave of this thread, knowing that my continued discussion of this subject will only result in what I've seen repeated many times over during the time that I've been on this board:

One small number of people defending the idea that God, despite the efforts of His enemies to corrupt His words and to sow discord among His people, has indeed preserved His words perfectly for them;
And the other much larger and ever-growing number of people, buying into ( and defending ) what amounts to a never-ending process that essentially casts out the power of God's love for His people, and places that power in the hands of flawed and man-centered scholarship.


At the end of the day,
Either we believe that He is God and that He has the power to do what He has said, or we believe that He allows His purposes to be hindered ( and even completely undone ) by men...
Who are lesser in power and might than even the angels.

Either God uses men to do His will, with the final outcome His to decide...
or He relies on them to do His will, with the final outcome ours to decide.


I wish all of you well, and God's blessings and mercy upon you.

 

[Conan]

My friend,
Compare the statements, " ...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means, to me, that Jesus did not think that He was stealing from God for Him to actually be equal with God )
to, " did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"( which is more ambiguous to me ), and I would hope that you see the glaring differences in their meaning.

To me, one declares, outright, Him being equal to God.
The others leave me confused, and asking the question, "what does the phrase, 'did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' actually mean"?
That Jesus was in the form of God, but did not think that He should hold on to it?
Or that He was in the form of God, but didn't think that He could attain to that level of equality?

Those differences above in wording ( how they read ) are a result of both translation method and translation accuracy when carrying over the Greek into the English, as well as their respective choices of which of the three existing collated Greek texts were used as a basis for that translation.

The AV used the "Textus Receptus", while both of the others used the "MGNT" ( Majority Greek New Testament ), which contains readings from Westcott and Hort's "Critical Text".

But my real question is,
Which of them, overall, does more to support the Deity of the Lord Jesus in the passage listed, and which do less?


When I carefully compare the statements above ( keeping in mind the textual foundations of all three, as well as how the respective translation teams chose to word each passage ), I see a marked difference between the AV and the other two...

The AV does more, and the other two do less... and that's just one example.

You are mistaken about Westcott/Hort verses the Majority Greek Text.
The Majority Text is allied with the TR. Infact the TR is a subset of the Byzantine Text, or the great Majority Text. 9 out of 10 times the TR and Byzantine Text will agree against Westcott/Hort. That's what is wrong with "onlyism". They have a great Bible but tell stories that are not true. I was glad to hear you think well of Tyndale and the others though. 2 thumbs up on English Bible Translation!

 

[Conan]

I looked a bit but I don’t know about the Crown held copyrights.
For sure in the US it is in the public domain.

Because of 1776.