King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

trofimus · Jun 9, 2017

Actually, I wonder what languge will Christ speak in when He will return

I know we will all understand by some miracle, like in Acts. But what will His original language be before it will reach our ears?

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

Sagart said:

Have you actually read the Byzantine manuscripts that makeup the Byzantine Text type and compared them with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Are you familiar with the textual variants found in the Byzantine manuscripts that makeup the Byzantine Text type? Are you familiar with the principles involved in deciding which readings are original, and which are variants? Or have you simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God”?

Are you familiar with the differences between the Masoretic text edited by Yaakov Ben Hayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, and the somewhat earlier Masoretic text edited by Felix Pratensis in 1517-1518? Do you agree that the textual basis for the Old Testament in the King James Version was the Masoretic text edited by Yaakov Ben Hayyim? And are you familiar with the differences between these two Masoretic texts and the three editions of the Masoretic text edited by Rudolph Kittel commonly referred to as BH1 (1906), BH2 (1913), and BH3 (1937)? Or have you simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God”?

And now we know—you have simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God.”

Give some examples of how the Byzantine's are different than Vaticanus.

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

dā·mêh דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb
lə·ḇar- לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
’ĕ·lā·hîn. אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun

[TABLE="width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]

is like

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

h1821

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]

the Son

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

h1247

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

בַּר bar (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

of God

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

h426

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Is this an example of the difference between Byzantine and the newer codices? One uses elahin and the other uses elahh. If not where can each original be found for Daniel 3:25?

trofimus · Jun 9, 2017

KJV1611 said:

dā·mêh [FONT=&]דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb[/FONT]
lə·ḇar- [FONT=&]לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
[/FONT]’ĕ·lā·hîn. [FONT=&]אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun

[TABLE="width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]

is like

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

h1821

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]

the Son

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

h1247

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

בַּר bar (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

of God

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

h426

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Is this an example of the difference between Byzantine and the newer codices? One uses elahin and the other uses elahh. If not where can each original be found for Daniel 3:25?[/FONT]

Not sure about your convo, but byzantine text type is about the New Testament only. Byzantine Church does not use Hebrew OT.

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

trofimus said:

How many sources are there for the old testament? And why does one online concordance or what ever you call it have elah and the other has elahin?

trofimus · Jun 9, 2017

KJV1611 said:

I am not much into the Old Testament, as far as I know there is:

Septuagint (used from the 1st century by the church and then by the eastern church - byzantine church)
Latin Vulgate (used from 4th century by the western church)
Massoretic texts - several editions, used by protestant churches from the 16th century
Dead Sea scrolls - discovered in 20th century
Samaritan Pentateuch - not sure about this, I would have to look it up

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

trofimus said:

I am not much into the Old Testament, as far as I know there is:

Septuagint (used from the 1st century by the church and then by the eastern church - byzantine church)
Latin Vulgate (used from 4th century by the western church)
Massoretic texts - several editions, used by protestant churches from the 16th century
Dead Sea scrolls - discovered in 20th century
Samaritan Pentateuch - not sure about this, I would have to look it up

No worries, maybe someone else will know.

trofimus · Jun 9, 2017

BTW who is interested, the whole codex sinaticus is digitalized and online, with transcription and English translation.

Its the oldest "Bible" we have.

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

Dino246 · Jun 9, 2017

ChosenbyHim said:

What utter rubbish. I shake my head in wonder. Clearly you haven't done your homework. I'd respond with more information, but you won't accept anything I write anyway. Go and read James White's The King James Only Controversy (for a start).

If you respond with any criticism of Dr. White, without reading his book, you paint yourself as closed-minded and brainwashed. Have a nice day.

John146 · Jun 9, 2017

trofimus said:

Oldest because it was never used and rejected by the true believers of the early church. That's the only reason it survived.

trofimus · Jun 9, 2017

John146 said:

Evidence for this?

Sagart · Jun 9, 2017

trofimus said:

KJV1611 appears to be either “Lost in Space” or in the “Twilight Zone” because he is confusing the contextual form (אֱלָהִֽין) in Daniel 3:25, which is plural, with the lexical form (אֱלָהּ), which is singular—as lexical forms always are!

Sagart · Jun 9, 2017

John146 said:

On which fantasy website did you read this?

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

Sagart said:

Yes I'm totally lost when it comes to original languages. All I'm asking is why are these two websites giving different words for God. Same verse but one says elahin and the other says elahh, why?

dā·mêh דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb
lə·ḇar- לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
’ĕ·lā·hîn. אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun

[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
is like
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
h1821
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
the Son
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
h1247
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
בַּר bar (Aramaic)
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
of God
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
h426
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Zen · Jun 9, 2017

KJV1611 said:

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Raca means empty-headed.

stonesoffire · Jun 9, 2017

Elah Elahin means God of Gods. I googled.

graceNpeace · Jun 9, 2017

KJV1611 said:

Man, you are in so far over your head!

You believe in fairytales (KJVO and the rest) but defend your views from a position of total ignorance, despising and rejecting the efforts of others to shift you to the truth!

How on earth can you be in the business of arguing the meanings of words in languages in which you are so ignorantthat you, in all likelihood, you cannot correctly even discern the individual letters of their alphabets?
Are you even aware of how silly you look?

This is a bit like a school-kid who struggles to even do simple addition of integers arguing with Albert Einstein about his proofs for the theory of relativity!
You who cannot do simple integer maths trying to tell Einstein that his calculus is wrong!!!??!

You are wanting us to engage in "intelligent debate" with you, but, in all cases where I have attempted this the starting proposition from you is as nonsensical as 1 + 1 = 3.
You are trying to "prove" the unprovable and believe that those that disagree with you are being unfair, or insulting.
This, while you are digging your heels in convinced that your fairytale views of Scripture just have to be correct.
No amount of evidence will convince you.

I mean how could the kid disputing with Einstein know whether Einstein was talking sense or not - he doesn't even know enough maths to do simple addition, never mind keep up with Einstein's argument.
Apparently, as evidenced by you, it is better to stick with the mantra "Don't confuse me with facts!"

However, I can see that anything I say will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe the Holy Spirit will have better luck!

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

graceNpeace said:

Man, you are in so far over your head!

You believe in fairytales (KJVO and the rest) but defend your views from a position of total ignorance, despising and rejecting the efforts of others to shift you to the truth!

How on earth can you be in the business of arguing the meanings of words in languages in which you are so ignorantthat you, in all likelihood, you cannot correctly even discern the individual letters of their alphabets?
Are you even aware of how silly you look?

This is a bit like a school-kid who struggles to even do simple addition of integers arguing with Albert Einstein about his proofs for the theory of relativity!
You who cannot do simple integer maths trying to tell Einstein that his calculus is wrong!!!??!

You are wanting us to engage in "intelligent debate" with you, but, in all cases where I have attempted this the starting proposition from you is as nonsensical as 1 + 1 = 3.
You are trying to "prove" the unprovable and believe that those that disagree with you are being unfair, or insulting.
This, while you are digging your heels in convinced that your fairytale views of Scripture just have to be correct.
No amount of evidence will convince you.

I mean how could the kid disputing with Einstein know whether Einstein was talking sense or not - he doesn't even know enough maths to do simple addition, never mind keep up with Einstein's argument.
Apparently, as evidenced by you, it is better to stick with the mantra "Don't confuse me with facts!"

However, I can see that anything I say will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe the Holy Spirit will have better luck!

Why does one say elah and the other say elahin?

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

Zen said:

Maybe I should be brought before the council I guess.

KJV1611 · Jun 9, 2017

stonesoffire said:

Yes elah means God and elahin means gods. Why does one bible say elah and the other says elahin in the exact same place?

King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Poetic Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned