• 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!

Translation ERROR in KJV bible.

N

natters

New Member
Sorry, but 2 Tim 3:16 was true in the Geneva Bible as well. It does not mention the KJV, it does not discuss why the KJV translators corrected and replaced the very words of God they already had. Good try though. Any other ideas?

I'm off to have a nap. I have determined that it's more productive that talking to you.
 
P

psr.2

Guest
A nap would be more productive because you will NOT receive the truth.
Ask God why he wanted the KJB and why the greatest revivals ever known followed it.
 
M

michelle

New Member
--------------------------------------------------
Would any of you KJV onlyists care to explain why there is an obvious translation error in Matthew 23:24? And please don't say it's a misprint since misprints get corrected in later printings. Translation errors perpetuate into later printings.

Since there is an error in translation, and God does not make errors, doesn't this mean that the KJV is NOT inspired?

Cix
Straining AT gnats since 2003.

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


I have already answered this in another post. You ignore and reject the answer. By the way, the Pharisees Jesus was rebuking then, is the same of the Pharisees of today that are all still guilty of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel concerning this this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 
T

TaterTot

Guest
I noticed today that in 2 Kings 21, what KJV calls a "grove", others called an "Ashera pole". There is a BIG difference between the two, but the latter makes a lot more sense in light of the context of that bad ol' Mannasa.

Got any thought on it?
 
M

michelle

New Member
--------------------------------------------------
we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest (very worst) translation of the Bible in English,... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
--------------------------------------------------

The translators of course were not referring to the corrupt Alexandrain manuscripts however to which they acknowledge had additions/omittions in them, to which is what underlines and is also evidenced in the mv's. Therefore, the translators would not have even considered the mv's of today as a "mean translations", but "corrupt ones".

Maybe you out to focus upon what the word "meanest" means.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
Psr2,

"Ask God why he wanted the KJB and why the greatest revivals ever known followed it."

Maybe it's the same reason that God allowed the NIV and NKJV - and all the young people who have been saved because they can understand it.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Originally posted by TaterTot:
I noticed today that in 2 Kings 21, what KJV calls a "grove", others called an "Ashera pole". There is a BIG difference between the two, but the latter makes a lot more sense in light of the context of that bad ol' Mannasa.

Got any thought on it?
Click to expand...
Interesting Sunday School lesson this morning, eh?

Read THE SOURCE by Jamess A. Michener.
It is a fictionalized
history is the region of Israel.
The part about the Groves and Ashera Poles
are very interesting in this fiction.
The subject cannot be discussed further on
the open board.

Once you find out what these things meant,
the distinction you point out becomes
moot.
 
P

psr.2

Guest
quote;Maybe it's the same reason that God allowed the NIV and NKJV - and all the young people who have been saved because they can understand it.

More of Satan's lies.
God is more interested in people understanding scripture than they are. If we ask God for wisdom he will give it.
Those versions while they appear easier to understand dilute and pervert the text of the KJB.
They are not the same! The words and verse markings are different. Doctrinally they are different.
Therefore I believe only one can be the preserved words of God.
That is the KJB.
 
P

psr.2

Guest
quote;I noticed today that in 2 Kings 21, what KJV calls a "grove", others called an "Ashera pole". There is a BIG difference between the two, but the latter makes a lot more sense in light of the context of that bad ol' Mannasa.

Got any thought on it?

Grove is the exact word that God intended.
Have you ever seen what devout Catholics do around their statues?
Groves are what you see around them. Look for a "mary in an upright bathtub" in someones yard and you will see a grove.
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
Psr2,

"Therefore I believe only one can be the preserved words of God.
That is the KJB."

No argument with that. If GOD agreed with you He'd have said so!!

:D :D :D
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
KJVO person: "Doctrinally they are different."

This has never been shown on this Forum
that the doctrine in a KJV differs from a Modern
version. There have been occasional attempts to
show a difference.

I still contend:
Variations in doctrine are more likely to come
from divergent understanding of the KJV
than from divergent termonology between versions.

But for you dear KJVOest - I'm still awaiting
that even know what one doctrine is.
The name and a short explanation (definition)
will do, we will leave the Bible proofs for later.

wave.gif
 
P

psr.2

Guest
MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only.
That is a doctrinal change.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
But for you dear KJVOest - I'm still awaiting
for you to show that you even know what
one (1) doctrine is.
The name and a short explanation (definition)
will do, we will leave the Bible proofs for later.
 
P

psr.2

Guest
You are the KJVO.
You are a KJV OPPOSER.
I know very well what doctrine is and gave you a perfect example of how the mv's change the doctrine of God's only begotten Son.
Very typical for you Ed. Let's leave the bible for later. No thanks I'll take the bible now and prove to you that the mv's change doctrine and then you can come back and say"noone has ever shown where...."
The NIV omits 1 John 5:13 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.

That is a doctrinal change.
The NIV changes the doctrine in Eph.3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

They leave out "by Jesus Christ"

Do you need more?
Of course you do because truth is not enough for a KJV OPPOSER.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Stealth Poster: "MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only."

John 3:16 (Geneva Bible)
For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen
his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer
beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

That is an older Bible, it says "his onely begotten Sonne".

John 3:16 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
For God loved the world in this way: He gave
His only Son, so that everyone
who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

That is a Modern Version, it says "His only Son".

You say: "MV's change John 3:16 from begotten to only."

The truth is: MVs change John 3:16 from "only begotten" to "only".

I also note the MV observes the present day custom of
giving honor to God by using a capital "H" in the pronoun
"He". But I don't fault the KJV translators for not knowing what
would happen 300 years later.
I do fault the KJVO people now for not having a way of
changing the KJV to honor God with their pronouns.

BTW, the MV has the same message as the KJV.
No Doctrine changed.

(spelling change only)

[ August 22, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Stealth Poster: "The NIV omits 1 John 5:13
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.

Stealth Poster: "That is a doctrinal change."

Please, what was the name of the doctrine
(or a short description) before this"change"?
What was the name of the doctrine (or a
short description) after this "change"?

BTW, i insist on judging the doctrine from
THE WHOLE BIBLE. So if I'm going to judge the
New International Version (NIV) i get to use
the whole NIV and not just one snippit from
Pastor Riplinger.

saint.gif
 
P

psr.2

Guest
quote;
BTW, the MV has the same message as the KJV.
No Doctrine changed.

Wrong, false, untrue, deceptive...etc

Don't talk to me about honoring God by a an H when the mv's take the name of God and his Son out multiple times.
Don't bother doing the count I have heard the trash.
Just another of Satan's ploys to mask as good.
2 Cor. 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Ed there is no need to discuss anything if you cannot see the doctrinal changes in what I have posted.
Stick with your Wescott and Hort trash I'll take the truth.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Stealth Poster: //The NIV changes the doctrine in Eph.3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
They leave out "by Jesus Christ" //

"Christ" is mentioned in verse 8. It is illegal
by Revelation 20 to keep adding "Christ" to every verse.

Stealth Poster: //Do you need more?//

All i need is one (1); all you offered is zero (0)
When you make outlandish statements, you will
find you have to kiss a lot of frogs to get your prince :(
 
P

psr.2

Guest
Ed you might want to check the air in your house. It seems that there is not enough oxygen content for your brain to work properly. I have given plain proof of doctrinal changes and could go further to show omitted verses bit it will not help a person that does not want the truth.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Stealth Poster: //Don't talk to me about honoring God
by a an H when the mv's take the name of God and his
Son out multiple times.//

Being an elder, i shall speak of what i wish.

Just for the record, what is the "name of God" taken
out and where?

BTW, i might mention that the NIV and the KJV are
translations of ancient source texts. If you understood
the nature of translation, you might be careful
how you speak of the "NIV changing the KJV". The
NIV never changed the KJV. Each set of translators
made an honest evaluation of what the correct source
material was and an honest translation. They arrived
at different places. It is up to an HONEST reader
to before God read both and see that they both have
part of the Message God would have us to have.

Dishonest Bible readers will do otherwise.
However, i have a problem with certain KJVOests,
i have three different KJVs on my computer desk
but some KJVOests will tell me they are all the same

saint.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top