Originally Posted by pshdsa

I have to chuckle. Any time you go from one language to another, verbal exactness is impossible. So the King James does not contain verbal exactness with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That is a no brainer. However, the Holy Spirit wrote the whole Bible and can quote the content of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek accurately into any language under the sun. Verbal exactness is not necessary to the Holy Spirit. That is why the Septuagent, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and even the Bibles based on the critical text are God's word and man is without excuse.

Those based on the critical text remove words important to the sense.

Mat 1:25 "and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Is not equivalent to

Matthew 1:25 "and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

The removal of the word firstborn is a major problem. Sure the basic idea is there, but the removal of the word firstborn is an intentional removal to make the Roman Catholic superstition of perpetual virginity more widely accepted. It is an intentional corruption of God's word.

Again, the removal of Acts 8:37 in the critical text is an intentional corruption to make the pernicious Roman Catholic superstition of infant baptism more widely accepted.

Again, the removal of 1 John 5:7 is an intentional corruption to allow the Catholics to say that the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity but that they invented it and if you beleive in it you should join their religion.

Again, in Matthew 5:22 taking out the phrase "without a cause" is an intentional corruption to make it seem as though Christians cannot avoid sin (i.e. total depravity, which is part of Catholicism and Calvinism both) and to purposefully create a contradiction between 1 Cor 10:13 that God will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able.

etc. etc.

Sure, however, with respect to names of places, it would be really hard to get the pronunciations exactly right, and no translation consistently does. The KJV, of course, spells the same names differently in the Old Testament based on the Hebrew and the New Testament based on the Greek, so we get Korah and Core and Elijah and Elias, Haran and Charan, etc.

But there is a huge difference between acknowledging that the pronunciation of regular names is no big deal, and saying that every translation is equally pure. Translations based on the critical text are translations based on a text specifically tailored to making Roman Catholic superstition seem acceptable when it is not. The critical text is the path back to Rome and to the one world church of antichrist, under the pope, worshiping Mary.

You definitely like to obfuscate. Plain English please. The King James when it was issued was not popular and was criticized for over fifty years before it got accepted. Nobody was willing to give up their Geneva Bible at first. Then the KJV took Geneva's place and now people are saying the same thing about the KJV and criticizing every other version under the sun. The only critical thing I keep in mind is that about 4500 manuscripts make up the Byzantine Text of manuscripts and the KJV was based on a few of those available to Erasmus and his text became the Received Text. However when you compare the KJV to the Byzantine or Majority Text, you find very few variants. The only Bibles based on the Received Erasmus Text are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and Jay Green's Literal Translation Version. No other version is based on the Majority Text. All other versions are based on the Alexandrian Text of manuscripts that have substantial variants between them. The TNIV in John five says that Jesus learned that the man at the pool of Bethesda was infirm for 38 years. Even the NASV says knew instead of learned. So while I know that God reaches people even through the NIV, I simply don't trust it for myself. However, I have to deal with that version because it is the most popular version out there. I wish there was a modern English translation based on the Majority Text. There are none. So when I hit the streets I give out NKJV gospels of John in English but only have the option of giving out NIV gospels of John in Spanish. So I trust in the Lord. Only by the Holy Spirit can a person repent, convert to Jesus and be saved, and God overcomes a lot of stuff like Bible versions to get the job done.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

So when I hit the streets I give out NKJV gospels of John in English but only have the option of giving out NIV gospels of John in Spanish.

There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.

[bibleprotector]

texusreceptusonly said,

In other words, we are not bound to keep every jot and tittle of the Law but the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the Law argument seems like it is a word play to provide an excuse not to obey the jots and tittles. I am saying we should obey and keep the jots and tittles of the Law spiritually. For example, if it is a law to keep the Sabbath, then spiritually we do keep every day as a holy day unto the Lord, etc. Various things of the Law are typological to Christ, and are kept spiritually by us who are of Christ. Moreover, there are prophecies from the Old Testament which are yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, there is no excuse concerning standing for the very jots and tittles of the Law.

[bibleprotector]

pshda said,

The King James when it was issued was not popular and was criticized for over fifty years before it got accepted. Nobody was willing to give up their Geneva Bible at first.

This is not historically accurate.

1. The King James Bible took only one generation to fully replace the Geneva Version.

2. Only a handful of extremists criticised the King James Bible. I am sure that you could not name more than six people that criticised the King James Bible from 1611 to 1660.

3. And that "nobody" was willing to give up the Geneva Version is perhaps bordering on complete deception. I could easily name six people who promoted the King James Bible from 1611 to 1620. When the King James Bible appeared, it was quickly taken up by many Anglican Bishops, and even notable Puritans began to use it.

I think that you are believing the WRONG history of the King James Bible, the one promoted by the quasi-KJB scholars like Daniell and Norton, and by the anti-KJBO scholars like Norris and Joyner.

There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.

Thanks Jerry but what I don't like about most of the Spanish translations is that in John 1 instead of saying In the beginning was the word, they say, In the beginning was the verb. I find versions that say in the beginning was la palabra, the word. I just have a hard time finding an outlet that ships gospels of John with the word instead of verb.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by pshdsa

The King James when it was issued was not popular and was criticized for over fifty years before it got accepted. Nobody was willing to give up their Geneva Bible at first. Then the KJV took Geneva's place and now people are saying the same thing about the KJV and criticizing every other version under the sun.

As Matthew pointed out, your facts are totally incorrect. Try reading King James, His Bible, and Its Translators for some actual historical data. (Not that I think it would help -- it has been said this is essentially a heart issue. If you're dead-set against the KJV, all the facts in the world won't change that.)

Also, the Geneva Bible did not dominate the scene for nearly 400 years, so your analogy is strained at best.

The only Bibles based on the Received Erasmus Text are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and Jay Green's Literal Translation Version. No other version is based on the Majority Text.

I am not trying to be insulting, but you sound like someone who read one essay and thinks he understands everything. Your terminology is so confused that it is difficult to respond. The KJV is not translated from the Majority text (and neither are the others you listed). The Majority Text is a modern invention and is a text nobody used until the 20th century. It is not synonymous with the Received Text.

Only by the Holy Spirit can a person repent, convert to Jesus and be saved, and God overcomes a lot of stuff like Bible versions to get the job done.

While this statement is literally true, the "spirit" (heh heh) in which you offer it is false. One can not use the Holy Spirit as an excuse to treat the Bible with such a cavalier attitude, as we are commanded to seek out the Book of the Lord and read and study and rightly divide it. The Bible is profitable for doctrine and reproof -- those are attributes of Scripture, not the Holy Spirit.

Caring about the Bible -- and caring for the very words in it -- evinces love for Jesus Christ. You can't brush it aside with "well the Holy Spirit will take care of everything."

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A few more corrections on this.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

The only Bibles based on the Received Erasmus Text

hi pshdsa . the King James Bible was not based on the "Received Erasmus Text". The later Textus Receptus refinements of Stephanus and Bezae could be considered the base text, with some variants even from those. The work of Erasmus was at the base of the Reformation Bible however your expression gives the wrong impression that his text was being directly used by King James Bible and Geneva translators.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and Jay Green's Literal Translation Version.

And Young's Literal, all the KJ21/Millenium versions, other Jay Green versions, and an Orthodox Bible or two, and most importantly, all the historic Bibles like the Tyndale and Geneva.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

No other version is based on the Majority Text.

As Brandon pointed out, none of these are "based on the Majority Text" which is a term used for a Greek-MSS based text only (thus it would not have Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma and Luke 17:36 and the phrase in 1 John 2:23 along with quite a number of other phrases). Although the term Majority Text is ill-defined, today it is never used in textual circles for the underlying Received Text.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

All other versions are based on the Alexandrian Text of manuscripts that have substantial variants between them.

Except for the Peshitta translations and the Vulgate translations in English and the Majority texts of Hodges-Farsted and Robinson-Pierpont (not sure of English on those two).

Originally Posted by pshdsa

The TNIV in John five says that Jesus learned that the man at the pool of Bethesda was infirm for 38 years. Even the NASV says knew instead of learned. So while I know that God reaches people even through the NIV, I simply don't trust it for myself.

Yet there tons of errors as bad and worse that are shared between the NIV and the NASV and the HCSB and the ESV and all the rest, like Jesus saying he was not going to the feast or the swine marathon from Gerash. None of the versions can be trusted. How could anybody use a Bible he does not trust, when he has access to God's pure word ?

Originally Posted by pshdsa

I have to deal with that version because it is the most popular version out there.

Why not simply read and distribute the pure Bible, rather than what is deficient and corrupt ? God will honor such a step.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

I wish there was a modern English translation based on the Majority Text. There are none.

You mean Received Text, as explained above. There are a few, they simply are not as beautiful and accurate and majestic as the King James Bible. There is no big market because folks sense the majesty and authority and accuracy of the King James Bible. It is kind of a niche market based on irrational King James Bible fears "do I have to use the King James Bible, my friends will look at me funny ?"

Shalom,
Steven