What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bible?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#81
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Praus. I am well aware of the two different words translated as "love". Are you trying to tell us that this is wrong and that we are missing some "golden nugget of truth" because they are both translated as "love"?

You have yet to get around to telling us what, if any, is the fundamental difference in MEANING of these two words. That does seem to be what you were implying. So, if there is some kind of difference in the meaning of each Greek word, then kindly and finally get around to telling us what it is. You keep avoiding it. You keep dodging my question. Otherwise, just admit that your previous post about the 4 different Greek verbs was pointless. You were just filling up space. Thanks
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
#82
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I phileo cooking. But, with all my heart and soul, I agape God. Big difference.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#83
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Praus. I am well aware of the two different words translated as "love". Are you trying to tell us that this is wrong and that we are missing some "golden nugget of truth" because they are both translated as "love"?

You have yet to get around to telling us what, if any, is the fundamental difference in MEANING of these two words. That does seem to be what you were implying. So, if there is some kind of difference in the meaning of each Greek word, then kindly and finally get around to telling us what it is. You keep avoiding it. You keep dodging my question. Otherwise, just admit that your previous post about the 4 different Greek verbs was pointless. You were just filling up space. Thanks
Ok, I give up, you win! :eek: If you seriously believe that God uses different words in the New Testament when He really intends to use the same word, then Luke 14:10 is all about will kinney.

Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

On that note, neither Greek verb refers to homosexual "love" or cultist polygamy:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/72866-truth-about-kjv-only-mormon-ecumenical-homosexual-neo-nazi-agendas.html
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#84
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I phileo cooking. But, with all my heart and soul, I agape God. Big difference.
Hi c. Please be more specific. What exactly do you think the difference in meaning between the two different Greek words is? You may well have told a bunch of foolishness. Thanks
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#85
The Greek words of "love" in the N.T.

Hi guys. Since Praus continues to dance around giving us a clear answer, and brother c doesn't know, I will explain it for you. There is NO discernible difference in meaning at all between agape and phileo.

Words for Love in the New Testament - agapao versus phileo.

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

These "serious scholars" like to think they are privy to special insights and nuances the rest of us peons of the pews cannot fathom. They take great pains to let us know there are subtle meanings found only in "the original Greek" of which we garden variety Christians remain woefully ignorant until they exercise their priestcraft to open these hidden treasures on our behalf.

They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these scholarly types tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or not.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

If it be asked: "Then why did God use two different Greek words (agapao and phileo) to often mean the same thing?", then we answer that God used not just two but six different Hebrew words in the Old Testament to refer to love.

The various Hebrew words translated as love are # 157, 1730, 2836, 5690, 7355, and 7474. Number 157 ah-hehv is used in Deut. 4:37 "because the Lord LOVED thy fathers", and in 1 Kings 3:3 "and Solomon LOVED the Lord", but the same word is also translated as "friends" and "lovers".

The Hebrew word # 1730 dohd is used in Proverbs 7:18 "let us take our fill of LOVE" and in Song of Solomon 4:10 "How fair is thy LOVE", but the same word is also translated as "uncle" in Leviticus 10:4; 20:20, and 1 Samuel 10:14-16 "Saul said unto his UNCLE..."

The Hebrew word # 2836 ghah-shak is used in Deut. 7:7 "The Lord did not SET HIS LOVE upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people..." and in Isaiah 38:17 "but thou has IN LOVE to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption." But the same Hebrew word can also mean "filleted" as in Ezekiel 27:17 "the court should be FILLETED with silver."

The Hebrew word # 5690 gagah-veem is used in Ezekiel 33:31 "with their mouth they shew MUCH LOVE". Number # 7355 rah-gham is found in Psalm 18:1 "I will LOVE thee, O Lord", but it also means "to shew mercy", to pity" and "to have compassion". See Exodus 33:19 and Psalm 103:13. In like manner the Hebrew word # 7474 rag-yah is used in Song of Solomon 6:4 "Thou art beautiful, MY LOVE." Six completely different Hebrew words, yet each of them can be used to express the same idea in certain contexts - "love"; yet most of these same words can mean other things in different contexts.

Don't let the Greek scholars steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson01.htm

Dr. Thomas Holland.

The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and thrice asked, 'Do you love me?' he used two different words in Greek, why wasn't this captured in the English translation?"

The passage is found in John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time, when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this, Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection.

The King James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks, "me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words.

The standard French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word, "m'aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t'aime." It is the same French word for love.

The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther's German Bible uses the German word for love, which is, "lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RV, ASV RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation.

Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo, mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love (such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly love, then why does Christ use it in Revelation 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

Both words mean love and are used interchangeably.

Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this passage in John 21 prove the point that agape and phileo are interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts. (end of Dr. Holland's comments)

The simple reason the Lord Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him was because Peter had denied the Lord three times. Christ was restoring His wayward servant to fellowship with Himself.

You can also see an online article about these two different Greek words and their use in the Bible here

Truth and Song - Rick Schworer's Articles: Eight Hidden Doctrines We Can Learn From Agape and Phileo - The Pseudo-Scholars' Lie

Will Kinney
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
#86
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Hi c. Please be more specific. What exactly do you think the difference in meaning between the two different Greek words is? You may well have told a bunch of foolishness. Thanks
I have emotions about cooking (I desire/lust it = phileo). This is sensational love, what we feel as humans. Peter, do you adore me? Yes, I feel for you. Peter, do you adore me? Yes Lord, I feel for you. Peter, do you feel for me? Yes, I feel for you.

I adore God with my spirit and soul. (agape = love of esteem) With the mind we serve the Law of God. This love comes from the mind. It is the sort of love God commands of us. With this love, God loved us and sent His Son. With this Love, Christ died for us.

The difference: One is from the mind (soul) and the other is from the flesh. I thank God because of Jesus Christ. Because of Him, I serve the law of God (love) BUT by my flesh, I serve the law of sin. And the reason we are to die to our flesh. So that we can serve God through adoration.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#87
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Hi c. And the difference in meaning in these examples would be....?

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
#88
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Hi c. And the difference in meaning in these examples would be....?
Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo (desires (flesh). As someone who feels love in collecting things)

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao (esteem (give value to). As one thinks highly of his position)

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo (the Father emotionally loves the Son. As a father would have feelings for his child)

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao (the Father thinks highly of the Son. As a father thinks highly of a son's achievements.)

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo (a wife is to emotionally fell for her husband. Do not have cold love for your husband)

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao (a husband should esteem his wife. Do not think lowly of her)

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo (do not stop having emotional/sensational love for your brothers. There are some in the world who do not even feel natural love)

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao (esteem the brotherhood. Do not think little of that brotherhood)

Paraphrased (2Th 3:5) the Lord directs your heart (spirit) into the love (agape) of God.

Jesus not only esteemed John, but He was also emotionally attached to him. (Jon 13:23, Joh 20:2) As He was fond of Lazarus also. (Joh 11:3-36)

Both loves are felt by God, by Jesus, and by man. It is the agape love which we are commanded by God in His commands of Love.
 
Last edited:
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#89
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Hi c. And the difference in meaning in these examples would be....?

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao
I thought this is what I was asking. :confused:

How can I know whether "love" means Phileo or Agapao just from the KJV text, without any kind of markup, Strong's numbers or otherwise? What are the rules regarding the translation of the word "love" to
Phileo or Agapao or another word, to arrive at the exactly the same Greek that occurs in Scrivener's Textus Receptus? Thx.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#90
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I thought this is what I was asking. :confused:

How can I know whether "love" means Phileo or Agapao just from the KJV text, without any kind of markup, Strong's numbers or otherwise? What are the rules regarding the translation of the word "love" to
Phileo or Agapao or another word, to arrive at the exactly the same Greek that occurs in Scrivener's Textus Receptus? Thx.
Hi Praus. There is NO difference in meaning. By the way, aren't you being a hypocrite with you refer to "exactly the same Greek that occurs in Scrivener's T.R." and then wildly and without any logical reason claim that John 14:14 in the KJB somehow "denies the deity of Christ", when what is found in the KJB is exactly what Scrivener's TR says? Helloooo?

Oh, wait...You're still writing your own "the Praus Bible", huh? How's that working out for you? Gonna be in print soon?
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
#91
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

agape = love from the mind
phileo = love from the flesh.

No difference? Peter, do you agape me?......Yes, I phileo you. No difference? But, Jesus seemed to think there was.
 
Last edited:
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#92
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Hi Praus. There is NO difference in meaning. By the way, aren't you being a hypocrite with you refer to "exactly the same Greek that occurs in Scrivener's T.R." and then wildly and without any logical reason claim that John 14:14 in the KJB somehow "denies the deity of Christ", when what is found in the KJB is exactly what Scrivener's TR says? Helloooo?

Well that's two different issues. One is the correct English to Greek translation, and the other is whether words were added or subtracted from the TR, ignoring the italicized/bracketed words.


The front cover of the 1611 KJV reads: THE / HOLY / BIBLE, / Conteyning the Old Testa- / ment, and the New, / ¶ Newly Translated out of / the Originall Tongues: and with the former Translations diligently / compared and reuised, by his / Maiesties speciall Com- / mandement. | ¶ Appointed to be read in Churches / ¶ IMPRINTED at London by Robert / Barker, Printer to the / Kings most excellent / Maiestie / ANNO DOM. 1611.

So I want to know if there exists and algorithm for mapping the "newly translated" English back to the Greek TR. John 14:14 is only one verse, is there andy algorithm we can use for the gospel of John or for the NT as a whole?

Oh, wait...You're still writing your own "the Praus Bible", huh? How's that working out for you? Gonna be in print soon?
I was just in the Bible file, I forgot the real name, dating to last November. It's called the King James Bible Lamb's Bread Edition, so if Christians don't like it then hopefully the Rastafarians in Jamaica will find some value in it. I can't understand how I forgot the name...

No point in printing it! I intend to put it online for free download the same as the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. The bigger issue is that I would need to make it available for a while so I can get feedback regarding general acceptance or rejection by interested Christians.

In the meantime, it clearly qualifies as a "cult Bible", like since I'm the only person who accepts it at this time, so it's against the rules to promote here on CC as a substitute for ecumenically acceptable Bibles like the KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.

http://christianchat.com/rules.php
"Also, please don't post ... sites promoting other religions, cults, or doctrines contrary to the Bible)."

I'll let you know in a private message when it's ready for review.
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#93
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

If this isn't wrangling with words, I don't know what is
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#94
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

If this isn't wrangling with words, I don't know what is
Well, that IS what the Bible is all about, isn't it? The WORDS of God.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#95
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I see that Bible versions can be a problem for some people. I myself use a KJV, But I also know that its in English and was translated from Hebrew Greek and one or two other languages here or there.

I have read the KJV enough to know its a good translation; although I still caution people, to consider the fact, that any translation you use in the English, is English. English is not a fixed language, it changes in time. And its was not the language Paul and and Christ was speaking in those areas concerned in the Bible.

English can begin to even change over time, , meanings change some, new words are added, and words can even fall out of use. That being the case. Everyone should be willing to look at the Languages the Bible was translated from.

Those are the Greek and the Hebrew:

Why this is good is because they are fixed languages .Meaning they will never change. There words remain the same. They never change.

If you think, that you have to be a linguist and Biblical language scholar to read the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible, your wrong.

The hard work has been done for you. A simple dictionary, the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, is all that's needed for you to understand the the meanings behind the Hebrew and Greek words , that the King James translators looked at . Most cases that's all you'll need even, to correct and make clear meanings of verses in the English , that maybe did seem clear to you before in the English .


If you want a copy of the Manuscripts themselves even .A Green’s Interlinear 4 Volume OT & NT - Hendrickson Publishing. It's the best basically that you can get .

If some one wants to use a different version, that's okay . But be aware of what changes take place in these more modern versions in the English . There have been some really bad versions that have been printed: for example a gender neutral version. The list gos on.

So its important, to always from time to time, look at the langauges the Bible is translated from, It Is easy to do with a copy of The Strong’s Concordance ( Large Print) - Thomas Nelson Publishing.. ( It is keyed to the KJV ) .
I recommend that publisher as one of the better in print.



At the end of the day, use what English version helps you get reading, but you just have to be mindful also about the trash that,s being put out there.

And start looking into the Hebrew and Greek, because they are fixed languages. They do not have the problems the English has with conveying the intended meaning with some verses.














If you want a copy of the manuscripts themselves, just buy a copy. I don't see whats the big deal here.
 
Last edited:
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#96
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Screw it - lets just read the Hebrew and Greek and lets be done with it - or they are not KJV so, i guess it's not ok....

The Archaic language makes us think we are more serious - it's funny because most people can't read the archaic language and have no idea what it actually says,
 
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#97
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

The original letter the was penned by, the prophets, the apostles ect. We're what God inspired. Then there were copys made. Then translations made. So yes the bible is inspired. We have a translation of a copy of that. If you can not understand that then I am sorry. I bet you don't even read the 1611. The Kjv we all know and love is like a 1789 redu.( I'm not sure on the last date). This discussion becomes bizarre. I must ask this. When the Kjv was being translated did the translators believe it was the final product ? If so why the revisions?
 
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#98
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Were not we're. Sorry auto correct.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#99
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

Screw it - lets just read the Hebrew and Greek and lets be done with it - or they are not KJV so, i guess it's not ok....
It's called "double inspiration" in KJV-onlyism, not all of them believe this.

The idea is that the English translation of the KJV is inspired by God and it corrects "errors" in the Hebrew and Greek. In the places where the KJV differs from the original languages, then the KJV is correct and looking at the Hebrew or Greek is only "confusing" and "dangerous". -> Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers: G.A. Riplinger: 9780979411762: Amazon.com: Books


The following is typical,
including the reference to the KJV as a pair of Reebok shoes. :eek:


Why the English of the King James Bible is superior to the Greek


For more information contact:
AUSTRALIAN BIBLE MINISTRIES PO Box 5058 MT Gravatt East 4122 Qld, Australia
Australian Bible Ministries

Why the English of the King James Bible is superior to the Greek

"The infallible English of the King James Bible corrects the errors and omissions of the Greek Textus Receptus. "

"So, hands up… who wants to run in bare feet when you can wear Reebocks?"

WHAT’S ‘THE GREEK’ SAY?

Ever heard this phrase when doing Bible study? Sure, we all have. The question is "Which Greek text?"

HOW MANY GREEK TEXTS ARE THERE?

Over 30 at last count and still rising.

WHICH ONE IS THE BEST?

Only one - the Textus Receptus (TR). It is a compilation of the manuscripts that came out of Antioch where men were first known as Christians (Acts 11:26). The other texts are based on manuscripts that came out of Alexandria and in the Bible, God hates things that come from Egypt. See Isaiah 31:1

WHICH BIBLE IS BASED ON THE TR?

There’s only one - the King James Bible. All the other versions are based on the corrupted Egyptian manuscripts.

WHAT? ALL OF THEM?

Yes and that includes the NIV, New King James, Good News, New American Standard, Jerusalem, Living Bible, Catholic Bible, the Message plus the other 200 or so versions that have ever been produced.

HAVEN’T THEY BEEN BASED ON THE BEST AND OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS?

No that’s a lie that everyone’s fallen for. It is proven that these manuscripts were written a couple of hundred years after the authentic manuscripts from Antioch.

BUT, DOES THE TR HAVE ANY ERRORS IN IT?

Yes. According to the magnificent Dean Burgon (the Prince of Translators), "The TR will probably be found to need correction in between 500 and 1000 places throughout the whole NT, the great majority of errors being of a minor sort ...". ("True or False?" by Otis Fuller p305)

SO WHY DO THE BIBLE CORRECTORS SAY THE TR IS ERROR FREE?

Pride, ignorance, and fear. If they saw the deception and believed the truth, it would cost them position, salary and reputation.

IF THE TR HAS ERRORS, THEN THE KING JAMES BIBLE MUST HAVE ALSO?

Absolutely not. This is where the divine providence of God has intervened. The TR was only one source that the King James Bible translators used.

WHAT WERE THE OTHERS?

They used the TR plus the Bishop’s Bible plus their unprecedented mastery of Greek and Hebrew plus their superior translation techniques to produce the error-free King James English Bible.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?

Quite simple - no-one has ever found an error. Many think they have, but the King James Bible corrects them every time.

WHERE DID THE TR COME FROM?

The Textus Receptus (TR) was the Greek text first used by Robert Stephanus of Paris, when he produced the Stephen's Bible in 1550. It wasn't named the TR till the 1624 Elzevir Bible was produced whose preface had the words "Therefore thou has the text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which wegive nothing altered or corrupt."

WHAT WAS THE BISHOPS BIBLE?

Another Bible was produced after Stephen’s Bible and this was the 1568 Bishop’s Bible. King James, from advice received, instructed his translators to use this one as the basis for the King James Bible of 1611. Why? Bishop’s was an advance on the Stephen’s TR-based Bible correcting many of the errors and omissions contained therein.

SO THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SUPERIOR TO THE TR?

Absolutely. Isn’t it wonderful to know that God in his infinite wisdom saw to all this when he produced the infallible King James Bible - inspired and totally without error. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm12:6-7). The King James translators didn’t mistranslate anything - God saw to it that they got it right. That’s why it’s said that "The English of the King James Bible corrects the Greek every time." God then used this Bible for over 250 years of unprecedented world-wide evangelism!

TWO PLACES WHERE THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SUPERIOR TOTHE TR.

The Bible correctors say that "thought" of Matthew 6:25 should be the TR’s "anxious thought". If this were the case then "anxious thought" should also be substituted into Matthew 6:27, thereby allowing you to think that you could add height to your stature by "thought." Furthermore the TR Bible correctors want to substitute ’disobedience’ for ’unbelief’ in Hebrews 4:11. Now there are many forms of disobedience and in this case it was unbelief. ‘Disobedience’ is too general a term. Everyone knows that the Jews couldn’t enter in because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19; 4:6).

ARE MODERN BIBLE CORRECTORS IN THE SAME CLASS AS THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS?

Why don’t you judge for yourself? Consider Dr Lancelot Andrews who would be head and shoulders above the pack today. He had mastered fifteen languages. It’s said that if anyone could have sorted out the confusion at the tower of Babel, it would have been this man.

Check out Dr William Bedwell - who was so proficient in Arabic learning that he wrote a Persian dictionary and an Arabic lexicon which are still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. How good was Dr Miles Smith? He was an expert in Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic and Hebrew. It is said that he was as familiar with them as his native tongue.

John Bois was no dummy either. At the age of five he could read the whole Bible in Hebrew. At age six, he could write Hebrew in clear and elegant style.

In addition, there were another forty-four men of similar intellectual and academic standing. Although not a King James Bible translator, Professor Robert Wilson mastered 45 ancient languages and dialects necessary to study the manuscripts of the Bible. His conclusion from over 45 years of arduous study? Simply stated - the Old Testament as we have it today in the Authorized King James Bible is perfect and without error.

"A LITTLE LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING"

One of the King James Bible translators, Dr Richard Kilbye, visited a church one Sunday only to hear a young preacher criticize several words in the recently published King James Bible. He gave three reasons why one word in particular should have been translated another way. After the service around the evening meal, Dr Kilbye gently explained to the young preacher that the King James Bible translators had carefully considered "the three reasons" but were aware of thirteen more weighty reasons for the word which the young Bible corrector had criticized.

You don’t need many brains to correct the King James Bible. Just enroll in some Greek course, get your First Year Greek Primer and Lexicon and you’re an Official Bible Corrector! However, at the judgment seat of Christ and the great white throne, there’ll be much weeping and screaming.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I see that Bible versions can be a problem for some people. I myself use a KJV, But I also know that its in English and was translated from Hebrew Greek and one or two other languages here or there.

I have read the KJV enough to know its a good translation; although I still caution people, to consider the fact, that any translation you use in the English, is English. English is not a fixed language, it changes in time. And its was not the language Paul and and Christ was speaking in those areas concerned in the Bible.

English can begin to even change over time, , meanings change some, new words are added, and words can even fall out of use. That being the case. Everyone should be willing to look at the Languages the Bible was translated from.

Those are the Greek and the Hebrew:

Why this is good is because they are fixed languages .Meaning they will never change. There words remain the same. They never change.

If you think, that you have to be a linguist and Biblical language scholar to read the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible, your wrong.

The hard work has been done for you. A simple dictionary, the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, is all that's needed for you to understand the the meanings behind the Hebrew and Greek words , that the King James translators looked at . Most cases that's all you'll need even, to correct and make clear meanings of verses in the English , that maybe did seem clear to you before in the English .


If you want a copy of the Manuscripts themselves even .A Green’s Interlinear 4 Volume OT & NT - Hendrickson Publishing. It's the best basically that you can get .

If some one wants to use a different version, that's okay . But be aware of what changes take place in these more modern versions in the English . There have been some really bad versions that have been printed: for example a gender neutral version. The list gos on.

So its important, to always from time to time, look at the langauges the Bible is translated from, It Is easy to do with a copy of The Strong’s Concordance ( Large Print) - Thomas Nelson Publishing.. ( It is keyed to the KJV ) .
I recommend that publisher as one of the better in print.



At the end of the day, use what English version helps you get reading, but you just have to be mindful also about the trash that,s being put out there.

And start looking into the Hebrew and Greek, because they are fixed languages. They do not have the problems the English has with conveying the intended meaning with some verses.

If you want a copy of the manuscripts themselves, just buy a copy. I don't see whats the big deal here.
Hi Nathan3. Brother, you did NOT answer the basic question. Can you show us what you believe IS the complete, inspired and 100% true and infallible words of God? Yes or No? You talk about "the Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts" and tell us we can buy copies of them, but WHICH Hebrew and Greek? There are about 25 different Greek texts out there in Bible Babbalonia Land, and they are all different and both biblical Hebrew and Greek are NOT what is spoken today but are in a slightly archaic form, just like the KJB is. But your BIG problem with "the" Hebrew and especially with "the" Greek, is there IS no such animal on this planet. There are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings in all those Greek manuscripts scraps and portions out there and no modern scholar is in agreement on which ones are really God's inspired words.

The more recent Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB reject many Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. The simple fact is this - You do NOT have a complete and infallible Bible in ANY language to believe in yourself nor to recommend to anyone else. Now, if you think I am wrong about this and am unfairly criticizing your present beliefs about the Bible, then it should be very easy for you to clear up all the confusion and prove me wrong. Simply SHOW us a copy of your infallible Bible or give us a link to where we can see it. But you will not do this, will you.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

God bless.