The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- 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.
Yep Sir John, we need to study His words. There were times it will be difficult to understand but we have the prayer to move the Holy Spirit and enlighten us. The miner digs its ore and that’s not easy yet it is who digs and digs gets more. Likewise, Jesus said to Peter “Launch out to the deep…” Luke 5:4
God bless
God bless
The KJV does NOT correct the error—it incorrectly indicates by using italic type that the words “the brother of” are implied in the original text when they are not. That is NOT translating the text; it is perverting the text just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do in their perversion of the Bible where they insert the name Jehovah into the New Testament in 237 places claiming that they are “correcting” the text.
The bottom line: The NASB corrects the error in the KJV by being faithful to the biblical text.
The bottom line: The NASB corrects the error in the KJV by being faithful to the biblical text.
If you are happy with your NASB keep using it. But don't try to suggest that it is superior to the KJV. All modern versions included the NASB are based on the critical texts WHICH ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (James 3:12)
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (James 3:12)
And here we have it folks...Ruckmanism 101. IIRC, Peter Ruckman foolishly claimed the KJV corrected the originals, and ole John146 has swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel all the way up to Ruckman's shoulder. I just have two questions for these KJVO'ers...what color is the sky in your world, and how flat is the earth?
The English grammar in the NASB is substandard, and the translation is strongly biased, especially in the Old Testament, but on both counts it is a hugely better translation than the KJV. And perhaps some readers of this tread should learn what the “critical text is,” and the processes through which it was derived—and learn that the text of Westcott and Hort has not been the basis for any English translation for over one hundred years!
I have here in my study approximately 370 volumes of analysis of the Greek New Testament written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought, and everyone of these scholars, without a single exception, favor an eclectic text over any published text. The NA28 and the UBS5 are useful for general translation work, but no competent scholars of the New Testament blindly follow them. Indeed, specialists who spend many years studying the Greek text of a single book of the New Testament give us their own translation based upon their own eclectic Greek text that is the fruit of thousands of hours of research. And yet we find intellectually impaired fools who do not even know the Greek alphabet telling us that the critical texts of the Greek New Testament are seriously flawed—based upon nothing, nothing at all but a brain-dead superstition concerning the KJV.
I have here in my study approximately 370 volumes of analysis of the Greek New Testament written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought, and everyone of these scholars, without a single exception, favor an eclectic text over any published text. The NA28 and the UBS5 are useful for general translation work, but no competent scholars of the New Testament blindly follow them. Indeed, specialists who spend many years studying the Greek text of a single book of the New Testament give us their own translation based upon their own eclectic Greek text that is the fruit of thousands of hours of research. And yet we find intellectually impaired fools who do not even know the Greek alphabet telling us that the critical texts of the Greek New Testament are seriously flawed—based upon nothing, nothing at all but a brain-dead superstition concerning the KJV.
Nestle, Nestle-Aland, and the United Bible Societies critical texts are merely WARMED OVER Westcott & Hort (with a sprinkling of Tischendorf). Let me show you from a significant portion of Scripture -- the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2-4).
King James Bible
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
New International Version
He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.
New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.
RECEIVED TEXT
εἷπε δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε, Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς.εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς
CRITICAL TEXTS ("Our" and "which art in heaven" and "thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" omitted)
Westcott and Hort 1881
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω / ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
United Bible Societies (UBS)
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε,Πάτερ, ἀγιασθήτω τὸ ὀνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
Do you see in variations in the critical texts? If not, then let's agree that all critical texts go back to Westcott and Hort, and there is no need to claim that W&H is dead, and that you have something else which is "new and improved".
King James Bible
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
New International Version
He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.
New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.
RECEIVED TEXT
εἷπε δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε, Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς.εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς
CRITICAL TEXTS ("Our" and "which art in heaven" and "thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" omitted)
Westcott and Hort 1881
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω / ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
United Bible Societies (UBS)
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε,Πάτερ, ἀγιασθήτω τὸ ὀνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
Do you see in variations in the critical texts? If not, then let's agree that all critical texts go back to Westcott and Hort, and there is no need to claim that W&H is dead, and that you have something else which is "new and improved".
Last edited:
Christians:
How serious is it to omit FIFTEEN WORDS FROM ONE VERSE in the English translation (SIXTEEN GREEK WORDS)? If every word in the Hebrew and Greek texts is a word of God, and the omitted words in Luke 11:2 are critical omissions, how worthless are those English translations which violate God's express commands to not add to or omit from His written Word?
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19)
And there is no need for anyone to come up with the lame excuse that this only applies to Revelation. There are several other Scriptures which make it applicable to the whole Bible.
How serious is it to omit FIFTEEN WORDS FROM ONE VERSE in the English translation (SIXTEEN GREEK WORDS)? If every word in the Hebrew and Greek texts is a word of God, and the omitted words in Luke 11:2 are critical omissions, how worthless are those English translations which violate God's express commands to not add to or omit from His written Word?
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19)
And there is no need for anyone to come up with the lame excuse that this only applies to Revelation. There are several other Scriptures which make it applicable to the whole Bible.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus is a backward translation to Greek from the KJV and carries absolutely no weight in a comparison of manuscript content. Here's the reference (note the bolded parts):
"The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version." https://www.logos.com/product/1801/scriveners-textus-receptus
"The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version. The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version." https://www.logos.com/product/1801/scriveners-textus-receptus
Here is what Adam Clarke has to say on the prayer in Luke:
Verses 1-5
Teach us to pray - See the nature of prayer, with an ample explanation of the different parts of the Lord's Prayer, treated of in Matthew 6:5-16; (note). The prayer related here by Luke is not precisely the same as that mentioned by Matthew; and indeed it is not likely that it was given at the same time. That in Matthew seems to have been given after the second passover; and this in Luke was given probably after the third passover, between the feasts of tabernacles, and the dedication. It is thus that Bishop Newcome places them in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels.
There are many variations in the MSS. in this prayer; but they seem to have proceeded principally from the desire of rendering this similar to that in Matthew. Attempts of this nature have given birth to multitudes of the various readings in the MSS. of the New Testament. It should be remarked, also, that there is no vestige of the doxology found in Matthew in any copy of St. Luke's Gospel.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/luke-11.html
Verses 1-5
Teach us to pray - See the nature of prayer, with an ample explanation of the different parts of the Lord's Prayer, treated of in Matthew 6:5-16; (note). The prayer related here by Luke is not precisely the same as that mentioned by Matthew; and indeed it is not likely that it was given at the same time. That in Matthew seems to have been given after the second passover; and this in Luke was given probably after the third passover, between the feasts of tabernacles, and the dedication. It is thus that Bishop Newcome places them in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels.
There are many variations in the MSS. in this prayer; but they seem to have proceeded principally from the desire of rendering this similar to that in Matthew. Attempts of this nature have given birth to multitudes of the various readings in the MSS. of the New Testament. It should be remarked, also, that there is no vestige of the doxology found in Matthew in any copy of St. Luke's Gospel.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/luke-11.html
Last edited:
Here we have it folks...breaking news...we have the originals
But keep worshipping your bible, which is another way of calling it idolatry.
The fact that you have to slam Scrivener's Textus Receptus shows that you have no leg to stand on. Yes, what Scrivener did was to incorporate any readings found in the King James Bible but not in the TR of Stephanus (which are only a few in any event). That does not detract from its legitimacy and that is why Bible Hub has included it. The King James translators had access to all the printed Greek texts starting with Erasmus and going to the Elzeviers. So they did choose some from the other Greek texts but the primary Textus Receptus is still that of Stephanus.
What you should have done in all fairness -- if you know anything about Scrivener -- is reminded your readers that Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century, who actually wrote the textbook on textual criticism. and in that book he clearly CONDEMNED Westcott & Hort and their Greek Text.
Furthermore, as I have shown above, the W&H critical text is the basis of all the other critical Greek texts and they are all CORRUPT. That is why you have those omissions in Luke 11:2 as well as THOUSANDS of omissions throughout the Bible. And while you can rant all you want about the KJB not being the standard, and the TR not being the standard, the fact is that ALL textual scholars in the 19th century agreed that there was only one true traditional text of the Greek New Testament, and that it reflected the MAJORITY of existing manuscripts.
What you and others do not know -- or do not wish to know -- is that Westcott & Hort fabricated a story -- pure fantasy -- that the traditional text was corrupted, therefore their Greek text (based on Gnostic perversions) is the true text. This was truly a massive hoax perpetrated on the Christian world and you should have the honesty to admit this.
What you should have done in all fairness -- if you know anything about Scrivener -- is reminded your readers that Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century, who actually wrote the textbook on textual criticism. and in that book he clearly CONDEMNED Westcott & Hort and their Greek Text.
Furthermore, as I have shown above, the W&H critical text is the basis of all the other critical Greek texts and they are all CORRUPT. That is why you have those omissions in Luke 11:2 as well as THOUSANDS of omissions throughout the Bible. And while you can rant all you want about the KJB not being the standard, and the TR not being the standard, the fact is that ALL textual scholars in the 19th century agreed that there was only one true traditional text of the Greek New Testament, and that it reflected the MAJORITY of existing manuscripts.
What you and others do not know -- or do not wish to know -- is that Westcott & Hort fabricated a story -- pure fantasy -- that the traditional text was corrupted, therefore their Greek text (based on Gnostic perversions) is the true text. This was truly a massive hoax perpetrated on the Christian world and you should have the honesty to admit this.
With all due respect to Adam Clarke, what he should have done is pointed out that the variations in the Lord's Prayer are to be found only in a handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D -- and not in all the manuscripts. If you wish to get the facts kindly read and study The Revision Revised by Burgon (as well as his other books) since he personally collated the manuscripts first hand and knew what he was talking about.