Where did King James only originate?

[posthuman]

While I believe that to be possible, I am uncertain of the validity of that statement.

Because if modern translations deliberately take out the statement in Romans 13:9 that it is according to love that we do not "bear false witness", how can the translators be trusted not to bear false witness in the way that they translated the rest of it. It is almost as if they took that out of there because it convicted them.

according to what i've been reading for the last hour or two, the inclusion of ου ψευδομαρτυρησεις in Romans 13:9 Byzantine family texts is undoubtedly an addition to the original Greek.

there are two main families of ancient copies of the NT, the Byzantine & Alexandrian, which in many ways mirror the two branches of divided Rome. the Alexandrian are the oldest and most uniform in agreement, tho there are fewer overall. the Byzantine are the majority but are all hundreds of years later, and weren't a majority until 900-1,000 years after Christ. they include many more scribal copying errors and obvious additions or changes.

the 'textus recepticus' and 'majority text' are roughly a representation of the Byzantine family of texts.
the 'modern critical texts' like W. & H. ((tho they are not at all the only ones)) are roughly a representation of the Alexandrian family of texts.



so @justbyfaith maybe don't jump to conclusion about who is less trustworthy.
and at the end of the day, "if there be any other commandment" is present in both the Western & the later Eastern groups of ancient Greek copies of Romans 13:9. so the doctrine is not 'lost' at all.

 

[JohnDB]

Well, if it'll make everyone feel any better, most newer translations are based on Nestle & Aland not Westcott & Hort.

Not really...

New translations are based upon the United Bible Society's conglomeration of manuscripts used to determine the precise contents of the autographs for the New Testament and Biblical Hebraica Stuttengartsia for the Old...similar system for old testament manuscripts.

I think that the UBS is on their 4th or 5th version and the BHS has moved on to a new name as well...,(Jewish community still is annoying that way even after admitting Jesus is God.)

But...these are the best people with good explanations for why we have the bible we have. And they are the sources used for every language translation of the scriptures in the world.

 

[Blik]

I would say that it is expedient for us to adhere to the Textus Receptus; since it is a manuscript tradition that keeps within it much scripture that is rejected by the opposing tradition.

This would be only for those who don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to minister to them in something that is removed in texts that abide by the opposing tradition.

This is saying you have chosen one and only one way to learn what God tells us in scripture. I think it is a foolishness, it is deciding to turn a blind eye to everything but one way, but there were many scholars in 1600 who did their best.

If these scholars were actually trying to tell us what God wanted us to learn and not what they personally thought, then would you explain why they would interpret the word Passover and the word Easter? The word Passover means that God passed over giving death when blood was given for that life, the word Easter is derived from names of evil spirits.

 

[JohnDB]

This is saying you have chosen one and only one way to learn what God tells us in scripture. I think it is a foolishness, it is deciding to turn a blind eye to everything but one way, but there were many scholars in 1600 who did their best.

If these scholars were actually trying to tell us what God wanted us to learn and not what they personally thought, then would you explain why they would interpret the word Passover and the word Easter? The word Passover means that God passed over giving death when blood was given for that life, the word Easter is derived from names of evil spirits.

Actually if memory serves both Passover and Easter are Latin words...
Just like Noel is Latin.

 

[fredoheaven]

Well, if it'll make everyone feel any better, most newer translations are based on Nestle & Aland not Westcott & Hort.

I do think it is only rebirthing the old Westcott and Hort. They fall to the same line of what we call the critical text

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

It becomes very difficult to trust a person who claims that any single Bible is the only Bible that we should read and follow. I once had a Baptist preacher tell me that the KJV is the only translation that we should use. I promptly informed him that my blessed, former wife was Japanese and that English alone was difficult, let alone the "Old English" of the KJV. Imagine being a person where English is a second language and being told that if you don't understand the KJV that you're in some sort of jeopardy. Sad . . . very sad.

Credit to that pastor, as he opted to keep his mouth shut after I shared the Truth with him.

 

[posthuman]

In Galatians 2:11 in the ESV, it gives a definite statement that is contradicted by John 5:24.

in both the textus recepticus and critical texts the word in Galatians 2:11 is κατεγνωσμένος
it expresses an idea that in English could alternately be translated as blamed or condemned.

so that's an interpretative issue stemming from the tower of Babel, and it doesn't contradict John 5:24, because 1 John 3:20 -- and did you forget Romans 14:23?? plus the whole context of Galatians 2:11 is that Peter was not walking according to The Way. so John 5:24 isn't really in play here - which concerns belief, not works, and concerns hell vs. salvation not right vs. wrong behaviour.

 

[justbyfaith]

according to what i've been reading for the last hour or two, the inclusion of ου ψευδομαρτυρησεις in Romans 13:9 Byzantine family texts is undoubtedly an addition to the original Greek.

Why then, were the plagues of the book of Revelation not added to the translators of the King James Version; or to those who originally penned the family of Byzantine texts?

(see Revelation22:18-19).

 

[justbyfaith]

This is saying you have chosen one and only one way to learn what God tells us in scripture. I think it is a foolishness, it is deciding to turn a blind eye to everything but one way, but there were many scholars in 1600 who did their best.

If these scholars were actually trying to tell us what God wanted us to learn and not what they personally thought, then would you explain why they would interpret the word Passover and the word Easter? The word Passover means that God passed over giving death when blood was given for that life, the word Easter is derived from names of evil spirits.

Easter was the celebration of the early church of the resurrection of our Lord.

And the word "paschal" which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4, is the word that commonly refers to the Easter holiday in nations where the common language is Greek.

And therefore, it is not a mistranslation.

But of course, the devil hates the idea of the Easter holiday and seeks to destroy it. Because he was defeated by what it represents...the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

It becomes very difficult to trust a person who claims that any single Bible is the only Bible that we should read and follow. I once had a Baptist preacher tell me that the KJV is the only translation that we should use. I promptly informed him that my blessed, former wife was Japanese and that English alone was difficult, let alone the "Old English" of the KJV. Imagine being a person where English is a second language and being told that if you don't understand the KJV that you're in some sort of jeopardy. Sad . . . very sad.

Credit to that pastor, as he opted to keep his mouth shut after I shared the Truth with him.

Of course there is very likely an equivalent to the kjv in the Japanese language.

 

[posthuman]

It becomes very difficult to trust a person who claims that any single Bible is the only Bible that we should read and follow. I once had a Baptist preacher tell me that the KJV is the only translation that we should use. I promptly informed him that my blessed, former wife was Japanese and that English alone was difficult, let alone the "Old English" of the KJV. Imagine being a person where English is a second language and being told that if you don't understand the KJV that you're in some sort of jeopardy. Sad . . . very sad.

Credit to that pastor, as he opted to keep his mouth shut after I shared the Truth with him.

we used to have a member who was Czech from birth & native tongue, and knew quite a lot about textual criticism, who often chimed into threads like this with a very similar & learned sentiment.

please introduce me to your former wife in the resurrection - i will bring my friend our brother i mentioned; we can have tea & scones and talk together

 

[posthuman]

Easter was the celebration of the early church of the resurrection of our Lord.

what???

**ahem** you mean either Ishtar or the festival of Firstfruits, and i have a pretty good guess

 

[justbyfaith]

in both the textus recepticus and critical texts the word in Galatians 2:11 is κατεγνωσμένος
it expresses an idea that in English could alternately be translated as blamed or condemned.

so that's an interpretative issue stemming from the tower of Babel, and it doesn't contradict John 5:24, because 1 John 3:20 -- and did you forget Romans 14:23?? plus the whole context of Galatians 2:11 is that Peter was not walking according to The Way. so John 5:24 isn't really in play here - which concerns belief, not works, and concerns hell vs. salvation not right vs. wrong behaviour.

John 5:24 tells us that those who hear Jesus' words and believe on Him who sent Him shall not come into condemnation.

How then is the ESV's rendering of Galatians 2:11 accurate? For it says that Peter stood condemned. is it saying that Peter did not believe in the One who sent Jesus, or that he never heard the words of Jesus? I don't think so. the ESV's rendering is therefore in contradiction to the rest of holy scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

what???

**ahem** you mean either Ishtar or the festival of Firstfruits, and i have a pretty good guess

I mean Easter...even as it is today...Easter is a celebration of our Lord's resurrection.

 

[justbyfaith]

At any rate, @Dino246,

It is your prerogative to read modern translations and to reject the kjv as inerrant and inspired.

I believe that in doing so you reveal yourself as being one of whom Paul prophesied about in 2 Timothy 4:3.

For I believe that the translators of certain versions qualify as teachers, of whom those with itching ears heap to themselves in order that they may tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

So, if you are not convicted by such logic, then by all means reject it and follow what is in your heart.

You have your own will.

Just realize that you are going to stand before Jesus Christ one day...

And that therefore, if what I am saying is true, and the kjv has the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God, in rejecting it you will not be able to excuse yourself as concerning the malnutrition that you received because you chose not to make it your primary version.

For example, you will be held accountable for what the kjv says in such verses as Luke 9:55-56 and Romans 13:9; even if you are not reading what the kjv says in those verses in your personal reading.

@Dino246: "But Lord, didn't you see that I disagreed with him?"

Jesus: "That doesn't matter; because he was correct on the issue; and in rejecting his words you were rejecting the truth that might have saved you."

 

[Dino246]

@Dino246: "But Lord, didn't you see that I disagreed with him?"

Jesus: "That doesn't matter; because he was correct on the issue; and in rejecting his words you were rejecting the truth that might have saved you."

More judging the heart? I guess the correction you received yesterday had absolutely no effect.

 

[Dino246]

Of course there is very likely an equivalent to the kjv in the Japanese language.

There's no 'Facepalm' emoji, but your post deserves exactly that.

 

[Dino246]

Why then, were the plagues of the book of Revelation not added to the translators of the King James Version; or to those who originally penned the family of Byzantine texts?

(see Revelation22:18-19).

How do you know they weren't?

 

[posthuman]

John 5:24 tells us that those who hear Jesus' words and believe on Him who sent Him shall not come into condemnation.

How then is the ESV's rendering of Galatians 2:11 accurate? For it says that Peter stood condemned. is it saying that Peter did not believe in the One who sent Jesus, or that he never heard the words of Jesus? I don't think so. the ESV's rendering is therefore in contradiction to the rest of holy scripture.

read the whole account in Galatians 2. Peter was clearly in the wrong, acting outside the faith. so what you are essentially arguing is either that Paul was lying when he wrote Galatians, or you are pushing a form of an early gnostic heresy that teaches nothing a Christian does can ever be wrong, on the basis of their having once believed.
((tho i know you aren't pushing either -- you are mindlessly preaching kjv-only))

let me put it to you this way: was Peter right to suddenly throw the Gentile believers under the bus because he feared the believing pharisees from Jerusalem who had sent a few people to visit?
if Peter was right, Paul is a liar and outside the truth. immediately delete half the NT
if Peter was wrong, what Paul said is correct, no matter how you render it in English.


don't set aside your faculties for the sake of the kjv, bro.

 

[Blik]

Easter was the celebration of the early church of the resurrection of our Lord.

And the word "paschal" which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4, is the word that commonly refers to the Easter holiday in nations where the common language is Greek.

And therefore, it is not a mistranslation.

But of course, the devil hates the idea of the Easter holiday and seeks to destroy it. Because he was defeated by what it represents...the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do we have any documents that tell us when the early church changed the word for God giving blood to pass over death the name of Easter instead of Passover? Or why they changed its name? I thought that happened in 313 at the council of Nicaea.