Where did King James only originate?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
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.
Even the 1611 KJV had a marginal note for this verse: Heb.him.i.every one of them.
See here: https://archive.org/details/kjvkingjamesbibl1611lman/page/n650/mode/1up
See here: https://archive.org/details/kjvkingjamesbibl1611lman/page/n650/mode/1up
-
1
- Show all
There's no need to make a big deal out of this so-called "Byzantine/Majority Text". Out of about 5,800 Greek manuscripts* only about 96 have been collated (https://greeknewtestament.org/.) That is only about 1.5% of the total.
[* 5,856 according to McDowell https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/what-is-the-most-recent-manuscript-count-for-the-new-testament]
So is there any true "Majority Text"? No. And should we pay any attention to the differences from the Received Text? No. They are all minor. And unless a true Majority Text is produced (not likely) who know if those differences were corruptions or not?
[* 5,856 according to McDowell https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/what-is-the-most-recent-manuscript-count-for-the-new-testament]
So is there any true "Majority Text"? No. And should we pay any attention to the differences from the Received Text? No. They are all minor. And unless a true Majority Text is produced (not likely) who know if those differences were corruptions or not?
-
1
- Show all
The immediate contextof KJB does not say any singularity. The marginal note evenly says “every one of them” plural speaking of the words of the LORD as in v.6. The history of the word “him” as in the marginal note bears the same as “it” and this refers to the word of the LORD (singular). It is the same as “Thou shall keep it, Thou shalt preserve it”, however, KJB has “the words (plural) of the LORD” which clarify as “them” and hence, KJB is correct.
No one's "crying out of context." But context does have to be considered.
You've been indoctrinated that the meaning of this passage refers to the preservation of God's scriptures, so you can't see it any other way. You believe it's necessary to defend KJV 1611 onlyism from any and all enemies; for that is what they are who don't believe as you. It's not just a Bible version that's under attack, but the very foundations of Truth itself. Relax, I'm not out to convince you the forsake your KJV 1611.
But by the same token let me go on record as saying KJV onlyism is a cult if ever there was one. I hope you realize this at some point. I'm out. God bless.
You've been indoctrinated that the meaning of this passage refers to the preservation of God's scriptures, so you can't see it any other way. You believe it's necessary to defend KJV 1611 onlyism from any and all enemies; for that is what they are who don't believe as you. It's not just a Bible version that's under attack, but the very foundations of Truth itself. Relax, I'm not out to convince you the forsake your KJV 1611.
But by the same token let me go on record as saying KJV onlyism is a cult if ever there was one. I hope you realize this at some point. I'm out. God bless.
You believe King James Bible only people are members of a cult. As I understand the meaning of a cult is a group of religious people who teach some kind of false doctrine and deny one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
I find it interesting that those like yourself who do not believe God has preserved His pure and infallible word in the existence of ANY Bible in ANY language seem to consider themselves "orthodox" while we Christians who believe God has been faithful to His promises to preserve His words in "the book of the LORD" and that there really is such a thing as a complete, infallible and 100% historically true Bible that contains ALL the inspired words of God are now considered to be "a cult". Messed up isn't?
I find it interesting that those like yourself who do not believe God has preserved His pure and infallible word in the existence of ANY Bible in ANY language seem to consider themselves "orthodox" while we Christians who believe God has been faithful to His promises to preserve His words in "the book of the LORD" and that there really is such a thing as a complete, infallible and 100% historically true Bible that contains ALL the inspired words of God are now considered to be "a cult". Messed up isn't?
-
1
- Show all
Umm, you are drawing your attention, not on the text which is in the final analysis that has been rejected by translators of the KJB and still can be contested the word "him" is "it". It would be the literal way of saying him (singular) can be regarded as the neutral "it" about the "words of the LORD" by its immediate context being plural. iOW, "him" was considered and has been discussed or debated by the KJB translators but they have not put it in the text as their final analysis demands so.
Contextually wise, v2, was about “words” such as “speak in vanities” “flattering lips” “speak”
v.3 again we have “flattering lips”, “tongue speaketh”
v.4 same as verses 2-3
Now, in v6, the writer is contrasting the words of the wicked and vile men from the words of the LORD as he promised to keep his words to those poor or the needy.
For the neutral word "it", my companion "The Shorter Oxford Dictionary" traces the word from "hit" which has nominative masculine He or male sex. During the Middle English hit lost its initial h. . He or “him” is identical to it (pp.965, 1,120)
Contextually wise, v2, was about “words” such as “speak in vanities” “flattering lips” “speak”
v.3 again we have “flattering lips”, “tongue speaketh”
v.4 same as verses 2-3
Now, in v6, the writer is contrasting the words of the wicked and vile men from the words of the LORD as he promised to keep his words to those poor or the needy.
For the neutral word "it", my companion "The Shorter Oxford Dictionary" traces the word from "hit" which has nominative masculine He or male sex. During the Middle English hit lost its initial h. . He or “him” is identical to it (pp.965, 1,120)