UnHoly hands on the Bible Volume II

Since you included the word "add," how do you answer this, since your KJV has added in numberous places to the word of God that the Holy Spirit inspired?? So far as I know, no one on our side has taken anything from the word of God so we really can't offer an opinion.

 

An even better question, where did you come up with that date for the creation of the world? (3209 BC)

 

Pete, it obviously didn't come from an ESV thinline. It must be from some perversion.

 

Whoa Nimrod, before going into which version everyone uses, answer one question:

Do you believe it was okay for the KJV translators to add to and/or subtract from the scripture they were translating?

For arguement's sake, I use the same Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV authors used. I don't stick to a specific English translation.

 

Let me defend myself;
What version do you use? </font>[/QUOTE]What difference does it make what version I use? I was questioning the version you use that you condemned when you condemned the versions that add things to God's word. So go ahead and defend yourself.

 

On the other hand the KJV drops the word "while" from Hebrews 2:9 ("while" is present in the Traditional text).

The NAS and RSV rightfully includes it in Hebrews 2:9.

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

NAS Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

HankD

 

Since "His" in the context clearly means "of God", the assertion that "[the NASB translators] have rejected the Kingdom of God" looks to me to be libel, and very likely breaking one of the Ten Commandments. If you do not think "His" here means "of God", then please say what you do think it means and why anyone else should accept your bizarre notion. Since the traditional text is not in English, it is impossible to produce an English Bible without changing the words.

Haruo

 

I think the use of "God" or "His" here is splitting hairs. The KJV translators used the following text:

zeteo de proton ho basileia tou theos kai ho dikaiosune hautou

First seek after the kingdom of God and justification (righteousness) thereof.

It's clear that, when you look at the contextual verbage, God is also referred to in verse 32, so the English usage of substituting a pronoun instead of noun is certainly translationally allowable. There are several places where the KJV does the same type of substitution. One such example is 1Peter 5:3, where the word "God's" is added to the text, 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, even though it does not appear in the Greek. Or, 1Peter5:6 ( Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time) where the KJV authors add the word "he" to the verse.

 

So what? You have not shown that any thing was left out here. If we argue that "God" was added to the originals, you cannot deny that we might be right. You cannot deny the possibility that the KJV added to the word of God. That is, in fact, the most likely possibility. What you have done in this thread is assume without biblical evidence that the KJV is the standard. Church history, both ancient and modern, has not accepted that premise and you should not either.

 

So what? You have not shown that any thing was left out here. If we argue that "God" was added to the originals, you cannot deny that we might be right. You cannot deny the possibility that the KJV added to the word of God. That is, in fact, the most likely possibility. What you have done in this thread is assume without biblical evidence that the KJV is the standard. Church history, both ancient and modern, has not accepted that premise and you should not either. </font>[/QUOTE]Nimrod said that Matthew 6:33 was changed in the MV based only on "Codex Aleph ONLY". If this is true, it seems to me you are failing to acknowledge very straightforward evidence that MVs are wrong here. Is your bias causing you to lose touch with reason? I believe Nimrod has clearly shown an unjustified MV omission.

 

I don't see any such "omission". Let me repost what I said earlier:

It's clear that, when you look at the contextual verbage, God is also referred to in verse 32, so the English usage of substituting a pronoun instead of noun is certainly translationally allowable. There are several places where the KJV does the same type of substitution. One such example is 1Peter 5:3, where the word "God's" is added to the text, 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, even though it does not appear in the Greek. Or, 1Peter5:6 ( Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time) where the KJV authors add the word "he" to the verse.

This is not a matter of MV's being wrong. It's a matter of KJVO's accusing MV's of something that the KJV also does. So the question should be: why is it allowable in the KJV and not allowed elsewhere?

 

Please tell me what conclusion you think an "unclear" person might come to by seeing the word "His" in the verse.

BTW - You failed to point out why the KJV can do it, but the MV's can't.

 

Nimrod has apparently been mislead about this to some degree, as the apparatus will testify. That does not make it conclusive whichever way since truth is not determined by majority vote but by accuracy. As we have often said, one hundred copies of an error does not make it less an error. By the same token, only one copy of truth does not make it less than truth. So if A is the only evidence, and if A is what Matthew wrote, then A is right, no matter who else disagrees. This point is too often missed by the majority text advocates. It is especially missed by the TR advocates.

The "straightforward" evidence is not so straightforward as displayed by the actual evidence separated from the need to tear down the word of God. I have no bias so it hasn't caused me to lose touch. With "his" or "God" there is no difference. "His" clearly refers to God. The absence of "tou theou" clearly explains how "tou theou" would have gotten there, since Matthew rarely uses basilean without a modifier. That alone testifies to the strenght of the evidence. It is more likely that a scribe would have added "tou theou" than that he would have omitted it. This is a prime case of the harder being more likely to be original.

In either case, there is nothing at stake.