my Companion KJV, along with James Strong Concord, with Smith's Bible ditcionary. However, I go back to the 1611 for references, just as I go back into the copies of the Greek manuscripts. Basically, I begin with the KJV, but totally depend on the manuscripts. From the manuscripts, I then search for the differents variants contained within these different copies. To me the most reliable is the Ethopic manuscripts,

You will help yourself immensely by not relying on Bullinger's Companion bible. I may have you all wrong Kevin, but I don't think I have. I think you are in the tradition of the Greeks who search after wisdom and then miss the truth (refer to 1st Cor ch's 1 and 2).

Besides, what you are attempting to do with your original manuscript work simply cannot be done. Neither are we called to do it. The Lord has already preserved His word to you (an english speaker) in the KJV. Its all right there RIGHT NOW.

NOW EITHER YOU BELIEVE THIS, OR YOU DON"T.

To me the most reliable is the Ethopic manuscripts

God's word is objective truth. You (and all textual critics) are using your own subjective perspectives to stand in judgement on God's word.

The late Dr. Edward Hills (author of King James Version Defended) was an expert in textual criticism. At one time he was an expert, work-a-day, technical professional with many more resources and education in this subject than you or I will ever have. Read his book I mentioned and see what his advice to you is on this matter. Its really a fool's errand you've put yourself on. And its costing you time you could be reading and praying over God's preserved word in english.

Originally Posted by kjndds

The Hebrew Massorah is only what is the Old Testament. It is today's Torah used in Orthodox temples. The New Testament came from the Textus Receptus. One must also be careful the translation is the Koinate (not sure of the spelling)Greek and not the Classical Greek. It seems to me that you are using a version of the KJ that is in Olde English.

Koine Greek was the ligua franca spoken in Greek up to about the ninth century. After that came what we call modern Greek today. You cannot take a Strongs concondance and expect to translate ancient Koine Greek. There are simply too many diviations. Actually by modern definition the KJV is not Olde English. Modern English is defined as any English from the latter part of the 16th century to date. With that said the KJV would fall within the modern English definition.

Textus Receptus being the recieved text handed down as the majority Byzantium text from the east as opposed to the Alexandrian text, minority text of Alexandria Egypt. Todays modern perversion of the Bible are based on these minority text also known as the Alexandrian autographs or manuscripts which represent less than 1% of all manusripts in existance, i.e. approx 44 measly manuscripts as compared to over 5,360 autographs of the Byzantium or Majority Text. The minority text do not agree with each other in many places and have had many authors and changes made including by Origen making changes in them so they would agree with the knostisism rampant in Egypt at the time.

What manuscripts do you want to trust? Majority manuscripts also agree with the most ancient copies of the Bible including the Peshitta written in Aramaic.

The last thing any Christian needs to do is refer to the Greek or the Hebrew definition of a word from some modern Greek or Hebrew lexicon. It can mean mean so many things in many cases. When I hear a pastor or teacher say, " well er that word in the Greek means a er I really can't pronouce it but my Strongs Concordance or my Interlinear say it means", I cringe because of the ignorance of that Pastor as to what he has just done to the people that are listening to him. He has now placed doubt that God could and would as He said preserve His Word for all generations and that God could not say what He meant to say. Confusion is not of God.

All a Christian needs to know God is preserved in the pages of the KJV. If you want to know what a word means look it up in an English dictionary even it that means going back to the 1828 Noah Websters dictionary. It is a very handy tool for certain words not used much today in the KJV. The KJV is written on a 6th grade reading level. It has been the Bible that during the last 400 years has been Gods Word that brought hundreds of millions of people to salvation. It is still the only real preserved Word of God given to us through God using a King like so many things He did in the Bible.

God gave us instruction on how to use His Word.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You will not find that word Study in any other Perversion.

In the service of the Lord.

Danny

Jerry, have you ever taken your KJV and look up words in the Strong's Concord.?

Lets do an example:

Isa 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

Now, look up the word JEHOVAH in the Strongs.

Its 3068 in the Hebrew Strongs. Note the way it sounds, "yeh-ho-vaw'"

But note one more thing, the word is taken from 1961, "haw-yaw'".

So when I say Yahweh Words are inspired, truley they are.

When I take my Companion KJV Bible, and Strongs Concord. and match it up to the manuscripts, isn't it strange that they all match up like a puzzle?

ok book guy. I guess you never read what the writers wrote to the readers in the preface of their KJV Bible?

One more thing, was not the KJV, taken from the Geneva Bible?

"Besides, what you are attempting to do with your original manuscript work simply cannot be done. Neither are we called to do it."

Yes I can,and Yes I am!

Yahweh Bless

Kevin

The late Dr. Edward Hills (author of King James Version Defended) was an expert in textual criticism. At one time he was an expert, work-a-day, technical professional with many more resources and education in this subject than you or I will ever have. Read his book I mentioned and see what his advice to you is on this matter. Its really a fool's errand you've put yourself on. And its costing you time you could be reading and praying over God's preserved word in english.

Very wise and Godly advice indeed OKbookguy.

...I've found that if someone can't fault the "message", they attack the "messenger". No one has ever been able to discredit the KJB, so they try and discredit the king who ordered it's production.

So very true Pastor Mikey.

If you want to know what a word means look it up in an English dictionary even it that means going back to the 1828 Noah Websters dictionary.

AGREED!!!!!! And then you will come away with a much better understanding of God's word because you're sticking to the language you've been speaking all your life.

[Diligent]

John Hinton has written an informative article on this topic:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...hova-YHVH.html

Hope this helps. John's writing is more like steel wool than sandpaper, so watch out.

Brother Kevin:

One more thing, was not the KJV, taken from the Geneva Bible?

Absolutely not. It was one of 6 translations the King James VI, I, set up in his rules of translation that could be used. He required that the translators adhere as closely as possible to the Bishops Bible usless there were scholastic evidence to do otherwise. Also you will find that the Geneva Bible agrees with the KJV in context whereas other perversions do not. I have no problem using or reading the Geneva Bible. The only problem are all the pro Calvin and Knox doctrinal marignal notes and footnotes which are not what the Bible says. That is why King Jame VI, I, made a rule that there be no marginal or footnotes in the KJB. Let God be God Kevin. Let Jesus be glorified and high and lifted up as the KJB most clearly does more than any of the Bible perversions.

In the service of Almighty God the Lord Jesus Christ.

Brother Danny

One more thing, was not the KJV, taken from the Geneva Bible?

Not. Recall the front page of the bible. It says "translated from the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared. . ."

So Geneva would've been diligently compared. But so was Tyndale's. And that's why we have such wonderful agreement between them. The modern perversion couldn't care less about the text of the bible. That's why they go as far and as fast as they can from the traditional words (not to mention whole sentences) in their translations. No thought for the earliest writings where early copies of the bible were being quoted. NO thought for the actual versions the very early churches (like the Syrian. . .Syrian Antioch is the church where Paul originally served with Barnabas).

Originally Posted by Diligent

John Hinton has written an informative article on this topic:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...hova-YHVH.html

Hope this helps. John's writing is more like steel wool than sandpaper, so watch out.

Very excellent scholarly article. Thanks Bro. Brandon. I think that about sums up the name of God discussion.

Bro. Danny

"Besides, what you are attempting to do with your original manuscript work simply cannot be done. Neither are we called to do it."

Yes I can,and Yes I am!

Read Edward F. Hills in his entirety first. . .you may change your mind.

KEVIN: God has preserved His word in english, obviating private original manuscript research. Its in a book. He has preserved that book. You have acces to that book today. You either believe this or you do not.

QUESTION: Do you believe God has preserved His word in english in the KJV?