Unreported News, Commentary, Resources and Discussion of Bible Prophecy
|
brett wrote:Are people starting to see how the modern translations just do NOT stand up to trying and testing ! The KJV is tried and tested and TRUE, and remains the ultimate standard - it is the TRUE Word of God. We can have 100% faith in it. Modern translations fail miserably, they simply cannot stand up to close inspection, they cannot be relied upon. God does not make mistakes.
This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness
And every man, &c. From Joh_7:53 -- Joh_8:11 is omitted by L T Tr. [A] The Revised Version note questions it. WH place it in double brackets at the end of the Gospel. As to ancient MSS., A (the Alexandrine, London) and C (Ephraemi, Paris), are defective here, so that the oldest omitting it are (Sinaitic, Cent. v), B (Vatican, Cent. iv). The oldest containing it is D (Bezae, Cent. vi). It is contained in the Vulgate (383), and Jerome (378-430) testifies (adv. Pelag. ii. p. 762) that it is found in many Greek and Latin Codices. It is also found in the Jerusalem Syriac (Cent. v), the Memphitic (Cent. iii or iv), Aethiopic (Cent. iv). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (315-320), quotes (Hist. Ecc. iii. 39) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (in Phrygia, 130), as refering to it. Ambrose (374-397) quotes it, as does Augustine (395-430), de adult. coniugiis (lib. ii, cap. 7). Though WH omit it, Dean Burgon (1883) quotes: "Drs. W. and H. remark that ’the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own internal truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with other Gospel narratives’ (The Revision Revised, p. 311, note). We may ask: How is it that all the MSS. which do contain it (including 300 Cursives) agree in placing it here? It was another attempt following on Joh_7:32, and referred to in Joh_8:15.
I will add more as time permits.
Abiding in His Word wrote:For example, the passage about the woman caught in adultery has been the subject of much controversy over the years.
Abiding in His Word wrote: so that the oldest omitting it are (Sinaitic, Cent. v), B (Vatican, Cent. iv).
Abiding in His Word wrote: It is also found in the Jerusalem Syriac (Cent. v), the Memphitic (Cent. iii or iv), Aethiopic (Cent. iv). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (315-320), quotes (Hist. Ecc. iii. 39) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (in Phrygia, 130), as refering to it. Ambrose (374-397) quotes it, as does Augustine (395-430), de adult. coniugiis (lib. ii, cap. 7).
Abiding in His Word wrote: The NASB and the ESV at least include it in brackets as an indication it is not in the original. Does the KJV do this?
.............And even John Piper (whom I disagree with more often than not) agrees that the story is not in the original manuscripts and therefore doesn't belong in our Bibles.
shorttribber wrote:Abiding in His Word wrote:For example, the passage about the woman caught in adultery has been the subject of much controversy over the years.
How many years?
And the answer is....drumroll please.......since WH (Westcott and Hort).
Your opinion is noted. The opinions of those who have opposed the flood of fallacy and stood against the opinions that took root after Westcot and Hort ought to be Respected also.Abiding in His Word wrote:I'm of the opinion that to discount or discredit those hundreds or more scholars is the height of disrespect for many who studied years both in the area of culture, language, context, etc. and devoted much of their lives to the end of producing a translation that reflects the truth of scripture while recognizing the changes in those areas over the past 400 yrs.
shorttribber wrote:What "Original" can the NASB or ESV, or John Piper be referring to Abiding? Not ONE SINGLE "Original" is extant. Not even One Single Sentence or Word of an "Original" exist.
You don't need to run around getting the opinions of scholars, scientists, manuscripts and the rest of that MAN MADE MESS.
Stop trusting in "EXPERT" opinions and start trusting in the witness of your OWN EYES and spirit.
Remember its the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth, not modern "so called" scholars or scientists of these Last Days.
Abiding in His Word wrote:You don't need to run around getting the opinions of scholars, scientists, manuscripts and the rest of that MAN MADE MESS.Stop trusting in "EXPERT" opinions and start trusting in the witness of your OWN EYES and spirit.Remember its the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth, not modern "so called" scholars or scientists of these Last Days.
Brett, are you not trusting in the opinions of "expert" scholars who translated the King James Version of the Bible as well as those who made revisions to it?
brett wrote:No Abiding, I'm trusting in what I myself can clearly see as corruption, by comparing (testing) the texts. How much proof does one need? Test them yourself, please.
We will likely not agree on this topic, so I'll continue with my preferred NASB and compare other translations as well as taking context, commentaries, dictionaries, concordances and cross-references into consideration to understand the intended meaning of the passage.
brett wrote:Ok thanks Abiding. Please note, the goal of this thread is not to specifically convince you, as much as I would like you to see the deception that is going on, apparently you won't be seeing it. So I will simply continue on with listing the corruptions - there are many many more corruptions in the modern bible translations. There will be others in these forums that appreciate what I'm doing here..
mark s wrote:We could go on for years as many do discussing differences in translations, however, if I remember correctly, didn't the 1611 translators say in their preface something like "even the meanest translation is still God's Word"?
mark s wrote:I want to make clear that the Majority Manuscript, while still the Byzantine Family, is not the same as the Received Text, from which the King James was translated.
shorttribber wrote:The Received Text, BECAUSE it WAS IN FACT Byzantine, IS Squarely BASED ON the Majority Text.
shorttribber wrote:mark s wrote:We could go on for years as many do discussing differences in translations, however, if I remember correctly, didn't the 1611 translators say in their preface something like "even the meanest translation is still God's Word"?
Here is what it says Mark....
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
Now, what they wrote did not have the intended meaning that ANY Bible written in English THEREAFTER should be considered As the Same....and IS therefore "The Word of God".
Hope you can see the difference in what they did say, and what I think that you are implying Mark.
mark s wrote:Hi ST,I'd have to disagree with this.The 11 or so manuscripts pointed to for the King James are not the same manuscript lot as the 5000+ manuscripts plus over 25000 citations and quotes from which the Majority MS was formed. The fact is, many many of these manuscripts had not even been discovered by 1611.I don't understand why it would not be understood that these are different manuscripts. I have both at home, use both, and they don't always say just the same thing.
mark s wrote:Hi ST,
I think I'll leave the interested reader to research the matter.
Perhaps a place to begin is on Bible.Org:
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical
While a somewhat lengthy read, I think it will give the reader a good foundation on the matter. Maybe some will agree, some will disagree, I know some who have issues with Wallace, who wrote this, but I think it will impart at the least a greater familiarity with the topic.
I'll also add that I am one of those who disagree with his conclusions. Nonetheless, his article is, to me, very well written and presented, and, again, I think, will aid in understanding the topic.
Abiding in His Word wrote:Daniel Wallace is the scholar who authored the article I mentioned above Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today
I also mentioned that Holly referred to his article and she explained her choice of the NASB as the translation of her choice. But she also practices comparing translations and context. Also highly recommended is the use and comparison of commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, and studies of cultures.
1)
Mark 1:1-3 KJV
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mark 1:1-3 NIV
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
Ok now do you see how the NIV has made itself deliberately INACCURATE and opens the door for people to question the accuracy (perfection) of God's Word? The KJV states "prophets", which is 100% accurate and then we see both Mal 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 quoted. The NIV however changes the words and instead states its WRITTEN in "Isaiah".
Then look at the footnotes of the NIV, more sowing of doubt, in particular, "Some manuscripts do not have Son of God"
2)
A strange mathematical fact. There are 678 verses in the book of Mark, in the KJV. If you look at the NIV you will see this VERY OBVIOUS note in the middle of the page in Mark 16 - its breaks up the text - its not even a footnote, its a middle of the page note, stating: [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
3)
Both the KJV & NIV state that Jesus is known as the "Morning Star" in Rev 22:16
KJV .......I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
NIV .......I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
However in Isaiah 14:12 the NIV identifies the "morning star" as satan, while the KJV does no such thing.
4)
Micah 5:2 KJV But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah 5:2 NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Pay attention to the difference at the end of these 2 verses. The KJV says from EVERLASTING - in other words from eternity, this is holding up the Deity of Jesus Christ. Look what the NIV does, it changes it to FROM ANCIENT TIMES, which does NOT imply eternity but in some distant time in mans history.
Also note the NIV states Jesus had an ORIGIN, which means He started at some point in time, in ancient times.
5)
There is a consistent attack made on SALVATION in the new modern bible versions. The new translations try to imply salvation is a lifelong process, while the KJV makes it clear that salvation happens ONCE in a persons life and is eternal from that moment on, eternal security of the believer. In other words salvation happens in a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME and once it happens you cannot loose your salvation according to the KJV, but according to the modern translations - salvation is a lifelong struggle and you can loose it.
1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Note the KJV says "SAVED" (past tense) while the NIV changes that to "BEING SAVED" implying its a long process. This is a severe doctrinal error, as it perverts the whole concept of salvation and is seen in many verses in the modern translations. Salvation is not a process, its a once in a moment event and is permanent from that moment onwards.
6)
Here's a weird one, the NIV promoting Christians to beat themselves, self harm, self mutilation.
1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Corinthians 9:27 NIV No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
7)
Luke 2:33 KJV And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 NIV The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
Here we have another inaccuracy - Joseph was not Jesus biological father, God the Father was Jesus ONLY Father. The KJV is careful to show this distinction, the NIV is not. And further down in this same Chapter Jesus rebukes Mary for calling Joseph his father in:
Luke 2:48,49 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
8)
Acts 8:37 is MISSING in the NIV, let's see why.
Acts 8:36-38 KJV: 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 36-38 NIV: 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Here we see the NIV again serving the Anti-Christ agenda, because this omission supports the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans etc who believe in baptising (Christening) babies, sprinkling infants with water, which somehow imputes salvation.
9)
The story of Mark 1:41 is utterly TRASHED & RUINED by the NIV, removing the compassion of Christ - why does it do this?
Mark 1:41 KJV And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Mark 1:41 NIV Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
For those who don't know indignation is ANGER, how in the world does the NIV characterise Jesus as healing a man in anger? Another corruption of the Word of God by the NIV
10)
The NIV severely damages one of the CLEAREST verses supporting the IMPORTANT doctrine of the Trinity 1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 KJV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 NIV For there are three that testify
Look at that - a total REMOVAL of some VERY important parts of that verse, creating room for DOUBT, or at least WEAKENING support for the doctrine of the trinity. Why does the NIV feel the need to weaken such support for the doctrine of the trinity? Because satan desires to weaken support for the doctrine of the trinity - that's why !
This is not the work of God. God never planned to FLOOD the world with so many different ENGLISH translations in the Last Days.
mark s wrote:Hi Brett,
You posted, referring to other translations:This is not the work of God. God never planned to FLOOD the world with so many different ENGLISH translations in the Last Days.
Brett, how do you know that? How do you know in fact that other translations were not works of the Holy Spirit. For that matter, how do you know - - - as a fact - - - that the KJV translation was a work of the Holy Spirit? Seriously! What is your criteria?
Love in Christ,
Mark
Because God is not the author of CONFUSION. Hundreds of bibles with different interpretations is CONFUSION. Which interpretation is correct? Where does a believer turn? Which version can a believer trust? God does not author this kind of confusion.
This is really obvious.
Jericho wrote:You believe that the KJV is the only true English translation, but this cannot be proven. There is nothing says "Thus saith the Lord, the KJV is my only true inspired word." And what about translations in other languages, are they corrupt as well? Does each language have it's own inspired version?
This whole thing depends on whether you have FAITH to believe God CAN PRESERVE HIS PERFECT Word for us somewhere on the earth. If you have FAITH to believe God is CAPABLE of providing us with HIS PERFECT WORD then you will have the faith to realise its the KJV.
Definition of non sequitur
1
: an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)
2
: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20sequitur
Non sequitur (logic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Non sequitur (literary device).
A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the word 'non sequitur' typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' refers to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
mark s wrote:I have a follow-up question.
Considering that the KJV is an English translation of a compilation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, is it more authoritative, less authoritative, or sharing the same authority as the Greek manuscripts from which it is translated?
Caution . . .
There is no good answer. That is, at least for King James Onlyists.
Love in Christ,
Mark
Jay Ross wrote: This argument ignores the fact that every English translated is fallible and that they should all be used with care.
Shalom.
Jay Ross wrote:Brett, your response to my above post is the very reason that I was reluctant to become involved in this thread.
Your mind is made up and it is pointless for anyone to argue against your logic and understanding.
So be it. I will withdraw.
Have a good day.
brett wrote:The problem is you leave God out of the equation. You're looking only at what is humanly possible by man. Have faith to believe God can Himself divinely provide you with His Word. His Word is more important than heaven and earth, for "Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. You think He's going to leave His Word totally in the hands of men to look after, without Himself being involved? No He Himself ensures its preservation.
Abiding in His Word wrote:brett wrote:The problem is you leave God out of the equation. You're looking only at what is humanly possible by man. Have faith to believe God can Himself divinely provide you with His Word. His Word is more important than heaven and earth, for "Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. You think He's going to leave His Word totally in the hands of men to look after, without Himself being involved? No He Himself ensures its preservation.
Brett, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of scripture knows that God uses man to accomplish His plans. He guides, directs, corrects, and endues with the power and gifts necessary to do so. You are, imho, underestimating God's ability to arrive at the desired end via the very instruments He has used for thousands of years...mankind. Mistakes along the way? Sure. But in spite of those, through the years via Kings, Prophets, Judges, apostles, etc, the Savior arrived to fulfill His mission. The Holy Spirit's gifts and power ensure the knowledge and wisdom for the continued work in the Kingdom.
To conclude that the KJV is the only "pure" version of scripture out of the 1545 is a stretch to say the least. Jesus Christ is the central message of the gospel and we can rest assured that unless He is removed from the pages of scripture, the message of salvation is still being conveyed to the nations. As I have mentioned several times before, I found Jesus Christ having never owned nor opened a Bible. I merely sought, asked, knocked, and it was opened to me. The object of our faith is the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible reinforces the truth that He lived, died, and was resurrected to save mankind for eternal life with Him. He is able...regardless of the number of versions or the languages used, and to deny that is to underestimate Him.
as I see it....
brett wrote: I'm saying if you're seeking the Truth about something you need a final authority upon which to rest.
It settles all matters, all debates, all questions.
Abiding in His Word wrote:Seeking the truth about what? I'm saying the truth is a Person. With over 350 prophecies in scripture regarding the Messiah, that evidence alone proves the truth of the centrality of Jesus Christ. That's the truth that's of the primary importance and should be the primary focus of scripture.
Abiding in His Word wrote:Evidently not....![]()
So is it your opinion that the 1545 versions of the bible do not contain truth?
brett wrote:Let's say I want to know if the Mark of the beast is IN the hand or ON the hand. The final authority (KJV) says IN and that's the translation I believe and trust, not the corrupted modern translations. So that matter is settled and decided for me, by the KJV.
Of course the other translations contain a TONNE of truth. Even false religions contain truth.
Can a man come to Jesus through one of the "corrupted versions" that you are so adamantly opposing?
Brett wrote:It settles all matters, all debates, all questions. That's what God has provided us as His Perfect Word from which all other things can be measured, tested and compared. Its the ultimate standard and its God who inspired its translation. Modern translations have not been inspired by God. Men took it upon themselves to translate (update) as they saw fit, in their own minds - a better translation. God had already provided His own perfect translation, there was NO need for men to create hundreds more.
Brett wrote:God has worked through other men to translate to other languages. The point is you have to look for evidence of God's hand behind the work - and that's evident by the quality of the final product, which you can test. As an English speaking person I would judge all bibles in other languages by how well they compare to the KJV. I have total faith in the KJV translation, I have little faith in my own ability to learn Greek and Hebrew and translate myself. If I am an expert in any language (which I'm not) - its English, not Greek nor Hebrew.
brett wrote:mark s wrote:I have a follow-up question.
Considering that the KJV is an English translation of a compilation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, is it more authoritative, less authoritative, or sharing the same authority as the Greek manuscripts from which it is translated?
Caution . . .
There is no good answer. That is, at least for King James Onlyists.
Love in Christ,
Mark
Yes there is a good answer. Short answer - GOD DETERMINES THE AUTHORITY - not man, not language experts, not scholars, not scientists - judge by looking for Gods fingerprints, Gods influence, evidence of God's involvement. All the modern versions are regularly being revised, they are forever CHANGING, UPDATING, the KJV is CONSISTENT and UNCHANGING.....as Gods Word should be.
Summary: of the 362 words in these twelve verses, the KJV has undergone 41 (forty-one) specific alterations. This averages out to one change per 8.83 words. This is just slightly less than one change per 7.91 words that I suggested was the average,3 but two hundred and thirty-seven times the number Scott suggested. To be sure, these changes are not particularly significant—but this has been admitted by both sides. What is not admitted by KJV-only folks is that the changes in most modern translations from the KJV (though on a verbal level are certainly greater than these) do not affect the essentials of the faith. My argument about the KJV is not that it has undergone radical changes in its long history (although, to be sure, there are some rather significant changes in the KJV in various places, as has been frequently pointed out in the books by Bruce, Lewis, Kubo, etc. [see below for a few examples]), but that it has undergone changes—100,000 of them. I submit that many of the changes that modern translations make are a mere updating of the language of the KJV, yet even these get condemned on the basis of altering the Word of God. On that same basis, for the KJV to change at all would mean that it, too, stands condemned. I am not, of course, arguing that this is the case; I am arguing that there is a great deal of selective evidence used by KJV-only advocates used to support their position. As the adage goes, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Anyway let's consider the argument of the original Greek manuscripts.......Ok Mark so let's say you have the original Greek manuscripts. How are you going to interpret them with your own human limitations Mark?
In order to interpret the original Greek Manuscripts you need to use LEXICONS - Greek to English dictionaries. When meanings of Greek words are given you are ON AVERAGE given 5 - 13 different possible meanings for a Greek word in english. So which definition is the correct one? Also there are different Lexicons to choose from too. So back to our previous example, who decides which definition of the 5-13 different possible definitions is the correct one? Some human scholar decides ...."ok in this case we will use this definition number 5 because it makes most sense to me". So who are you going to rely upon? A scholar, an expert? Or are you going to instead look for the hand of God?
You simply cannot use the original Greek manuscript "argument", because if you do not know Greek then what good is a Greek manuscript to you? If you don't understand Greek then the Greek manuscripts will have ZERO authority for you. Instead you need to either:
(1) Learn Greek
(2) Look for an English translation that was inspired PURELY by God.
The ONLY WAY to have a PERFECT translation of Gods Word in English is for GOD TO TRANSLATE IT FOR US HIMSELF. So you have to look for OTHER EVIDENCES of GODS HAND in a translation. Does it have any errors, has it been preserved consistently? Has it stood the test of time? You also need to put the different translations side by side and compare them. So the point is this - LOOK FOR GODS OWN INSPIRED TRANSLATION, for one of the translations was inspired by God, the rest were not.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
KJV
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a group of manuscripts discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by papyrologists Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt at an ancient rubbish dump near Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (28°32′N 30°40′E, modern el-Bahnasa).
The manuscripts date from the time of the Ptolemaic (3rd century BC) and Roman periods of Egyptian history (from 32 BC to the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640 AD).
Only an estimated 10% are literary in nature. The lion’s share of the papyri found seem to consist mainly of public and private documents: codes, edicts, registers, official correspondence, census-returns, tax-assessments, petitions, court-records, sales, leases, wills, bills, accounts, inventories, horoscopes, and private letters.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri
14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.
However you look at it the KJV is unique. Modern bible translations are clearly flawed and the product of men's own limited abilities. Modern versions are all based on modern scientific techniques and modern scientific principles, the same ones that gave us evolution.
None of them promote the belief that God Himself could INSPIRE and PRESERVE a translation for us HIMSELF divinely. No they all focus on mans own best "scientific methods".
We do not need to rely on mans scientific processes. We do not need to rely on experts. We only need to look for God's Hand. So forget the "most ancient manuscripts" technique, look instead for Gods Hand over a translation and you will see that the KJV has been preserved, is without error, has not changed and stands alone in a class above the rest. That is proof enough that its God's PURE Word, separate from the rest.
you will see that the KJV has been preserved, is without error, has not changed and stands alone in a class above the rest. That is proof enough that its God's PURE Word, separate from the rest.
Hi Brett,
I'm curious, how does faith that God can preserve His Word relate to the notion that the King James translation is the only true preservation of that Word?
Love in Christ,
Mark
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Jericho wrote: So how did the unicorn end up in the KJV?
Mark S wrote:If I remember correctly, the word is translated, at least in certain instances I checked, from a word meaning "one horn", so unicorn is a reasonable translation in my opinion.
This word "unicorn" in the KJV was an animal called a re'em in Hebrew. The writers of the Septuagint did not know what a re'em was, so they translated the word to be "monocerous," meaning "one-horned." Thus the KJV called it a unicorn. http://castlelyons7.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... icorn.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
”