What version of the bible do you read and what one do you like best

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here’s the translation note from the NET bible that has a similar rendering as ESV :
13:8 b tn The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity.

Sounds reasonable to me. Does this rendering work against a doctrine that you hold?

Aside from what I've mentioned before (I'm not sure you were a member at that time), that I believe the phrases "FROM the foundation of the world" and "BEFORE the foundation of the world" are applied to distinct things (distinct persons, etc), in Scripture, I also see the phrases "the book of life" and "the Lamb's book of life" to be more like what we see in...

Psalm 69:28 -
"Let them be blotted out of the book of the living [the 'Berean Study Bible' has it as "Book of Life"], and not be written with the righteous."

I see the underlined (2) to be referring to TWO distinct things (two distinct actions).



It seems, as I read in Rev, that it is possible for one's name to be "blotted out of the book of life" (per Rev3:5); but it is NOT possible for one's name to be "blotted out" of the "Lamb's book of life," only "written in" or "not written in" (it doesn't state "WHEN" it was written in THIS book [the esv is not worded correctly, here, for example as I showed]). The book of the living ('the Book of Life') is (as I'm seeing it) a record of all who have LIVED; one's name can be "blotted out" of THIS book (Rev3:5; Ps69:28, etc). "The Lamb's book of life" is a record of all who are SAVED; one's name cannot ever be "blotted out" of THIS book.

Hope this helps you see my perspective.

(I try to derive my doctrine/theology by what is written in Scripture itself. )

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Aside from what I've mentioned before (I'm not sure you were a member at that time), that I believe the phrases "FROM the foundation of the world" and "BEFORE the foundation of the world" are applied to distinct things (distinct persons, etc), in Scripture, I also see the phrases "the book of life" and "the Lamb's book of life" to be more like what we see in...

Psalm 69:28 -
"Let them be blotted out of the book of the living [the 'Berean Study Bible' has it as "Book of Life"], and not be written with the righteous."

I see the underlined (2) to be referring to TWO distinct things (two distinct actions).



It seems, as I read in Rev, that it is possible for one's name to be "blotted out of the book of life" (per Rev3:5); but it is NOT possible for one's name to be "blotted out" of the "Lamb's book of life," only "written in" or "not written in" (it doesn't state "WHEN" it was written in THIS book [the esv is not worded correctly, here, for example as I showed]). The book of the living ('the Book of Life') is (as I'm seeing it) a record of all who have LIVED; one's name can be "blotted out" of THIS book (Rev3:5; Ps69:28, etc). "The Lamb's book of life" is a record of all who are SAVED; one's name cannot ever be "blotted out" of THIS book.

Hope this helps you see my perspective.

(I try to derive my doctrine/theology by what is written in Scripture itself. )

I don't understand totally but I do believe the book of the living and the book of the Lamb are two separate books, too...the first is talking about all those who are alive at the time, and the book of the Lamb is discussing predestination. So I would be on board with that. I'll have to read your explanation again.

However, I don't think it is correct to condemn the ESV on the basis of a few verses. I like the translation myself. I could go with the NASB as well, for other reasons, but it is pretty clunky in its renderings imho.

It's not a big deal, though. I could go with either. I could even go with the NIV.

Just not the KJV. I am not going to drive a horse and buggy instead of a nice sleek new automobile.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't understand totally but I do believe the book of the living and the book of the Lamb are two separate books, too...the first is talking about all those who are alive at the time, and the book of the Lamb is discussing predestination. So I would be on board with that. I'll have to read your explanation again.

However, I don't think it is correct to condemn the ESV on the basis of a few verses. I like the translation myself. I could go with the NASB as well, for other reasons, but it is pretty clunky in its renderings imho.

I don't necessarily condemn it (though you could say I "condemn" that particular rendering of that particular verse! lol)... in some places I think it is translated better than in some other versions, for example, but as I see THIS particular verse skewed in just such a way, it just confirms to me its entire bent (elsewhere). IOW, if it doesn't SAY what is being translated to say here, then perhaps the entire "bent" is off too (mmhmm). I have a copy of it myself, and if my entire house burned down (burning with it all of the other versions I also have copies of, except for this one [the esv]), I wouldn't refuse to carry it with me and use it. lol (I do hope I have the margin marked, just here, to express what that verse REALLY says, tho. LOL!)



P.S. just before you posted last, I happened to notice you had "347" posts... I'd just made a post awhile ago, pointing out [Strong's] "G347"... lol... so, thanks for the fellowship!

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I don't necessarily condemn it (though you could say I "condemn" that particular rendering of that particular verse! lol)... in some places I think it is translated better than in some other versions, for example, but as I see THIS particular verse skewed in just such a way, it just confirms to me its entire bent (elsewhere). IOW, if it doesn't SAY what is being translated to say here, then perhaps the entire "bent" is off too (mmhmm). I have a copy of it myself, and if my entire house burned down (burning with it all of the other versions I also have copies of, except for this one [the esv]), I wouldn't refuse to carry it with me and use it. lol (I do hope I have the margin marked, just here, to express what that verse REALLY says, tho. LOL!)



P.S. just before you posted last, I happened to notice you had "347" posts... I'd just made a post awhile ago, pointing out [Strong's] "G347"... lol... so, thanks for the fellowship!

I'm Reformed Baptist. Most Reformed Baptist churches go with ESV or NASB.

I attend an Evangelical Free church and they are four pointers so they use the ESV. I hadn't really heard of it before that. I have went through the whole gamut of translations and I like something about most of them except KJV.

I used KJV for maybe 5 years after I was saved, though Stone knives and bearskins are nice when that's all you have.

I wish I knew Greek and Hebrew at the expert level though. And I don't mean some seminary graduate with a few years of each..I'm talking PROFICIENTLY. A few years of each really isn't a serious knowledge of the languages.

 

[fredoheaven]

The inclusion of the word, "Standard" in the name of the translations is irrelevant. I am talking about an objective standard (lower-case 's'), not a marketing gimmick.

An objective standard is like a tape measure. You can say something is about three inches long, using your thumb, while someone else says it's closer to four inches. When you compare both estimates to an objective standard (the tape measure) you may find that the object in question is 3-3/8 inches long.

Using the KJV as your objective standard for Scripture means that you assume that it is perfectly translated (demonstrably false), perfectly complete without addition (also demonstrably false), and uses perfectly understandable terms (subjective, but generally false because of 400 years of language change). I also don't want to turn this into a KJV-only debate, but I do want to challenge the thinking of those who hold the KJV as the standard instead of holding the original-language texts as the standard.

If you look at my post on #33 in response to UWC and my actual post on #53, did I mention/cited the KJV? seems you assume too much.

"I see it differently than the longer ending of Mark is by far has a solid backup of Greek manuscripts, an ancient translation of Greek predating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. and has many backings of the early church fathers. "However, if someone thinks differently on that issue, I just let them alone" unless one persists. "

 

[fredoheaven]

One of the problems is that people listen to guys like Steven Anderson...I don't consider him credible, especially since he said gay people cannot repent and might as well shoot themselves in the head.. His behavior alone witnesses against him.

Some of the other major players in KJV Onlyism are also weird..Peter Ruckman, who claims that the CIA operated alien breeding facilities, and Gail Riplinger who said God directly spoke to her and gave her formulas that indicate the NIV is satanic. And, we know Kent Hovind spent time in prison.

So, when it comes down to it, non-experts rely on other authority figures...and KJV onlyists are some of the worst in terms of credibility in my opinion.

Anyways regarding Mark 16:9-20, I just don't think it sounds authentic. JWs would love for Christians to consider it inspired, though..it supports their denial of the bodily resurrection ( the "different form" verse).

These verses are included in other versions, though..they just are bracketed to indicate they aren't present in the earliest manuscripts.

I think, those personalities you've mentioned are out of the topic. I cited ancient versions but you cited JW's, in fact, JW Bible is as almost the same with newer English versions! Surprise?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Basically, I have two go to Bibles, the NASB, and Young's Literal translation. I do sometimes use others, but I can usually figure out the meaning of a text by using these two.
I don't like the NIV, but that's a personal preference. I also avoid using the KJV much, also personal preference.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I think, those personalities you've mentioned are out of the topic. I cited ancient versions but you cited JW's, in fact, JW Bible is as almost the same with newer English versions! Surprise?

That's laughable

Show me a comparison.

If you are talking about the New World Translation, it is blatantly altered to hide Christ's deity.

In fact, the modern translations accentuate Jesus' deity because the KJV translators didn't understand the Granville Sharp rule.

See this article:

https://carm.org/KJVO/do-modern-translations-undermine-the-deity-of-christ

Notice especially the bottom part of the article, where it shows a number of texts that identify Jesus as God, in places where the KJV falls short.

 

[fredoheaven]

That's laughable

Show me a comparison.

If you are talking about the New World Translation, it is blatantly altered to hide Christ's deity.

Pretty cool, but we will set aside your attack on the KJV and it seems you just violated your own words to stay out of it. I'll give you one for you to chuckle on the comparison of the NWT to the most modern English version.

NWT Luke 4:4 But Jesus answered him: “It is written, ‘Man must not live on bread alone.’”+

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/4/

New International Version
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”

English Standard Version
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”

Berean Study Bible
But Jesus answered, “It is written: ’Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus answered to him, "It has been written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

New American Standard Bible
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."

Contemporary English Version
Jesus answered, "The Scriptures say, 'No one can live only on food.'"

Good News Translation
But Jesus answered, "The scripture says, 'Human beings cannot live on bread alone.'"

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."

NET Bible
Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"

New Heart English Bible
Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

That's laughable

Show me a comparison.

If you are talking about the New World Translation, it is blatantly altered to hide Christ's deity.

In fact, the modern translations accentuate Jesus' deity because the KJV translators didn't understand the Granville Sharp rule.

See this article:

https://carm.org/KJVO/do-modern-translations-undermine-the-deity-of-christ

Notice especially the bottom part of the article, where it shows a number of texts that identify Jesus as God, in places where the KJV falls short.

By the way, I don't mean to disrespect the KJV translators. They did a fine job considering the limited number of late manuscripts they had available to them (less than 10). But, the modern translations are based on over 5000 manuscripts, some that are much older and closer to the original manuscripts.

Beware the propaganda of KJV Onlyists. I would recommend reading the books by DA Carson or James White concerning the KJV Only controversy.

And, if they make a claim, take the same measure and apply it to themselves. As an example, it's a common claim (and fact) that an English stylist involved with the NIV was a lesbian. However, they fail to tell you that Erasmus, the author of the Textus Receptus NT used for the KJV, wrote romantic letters to a younger man and was a Roman Catholic scholar, and King James, who commissioned the Bible, was likely a bisexual.

Yet, I believe the KJV served God's purposes for a long season. It is not to be enshrined, though.

I find this one tool so useful in discerning rhetoric...taking the person's claims and applying it to themselves.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Pretty cool, but we will set aside your attack on the KJV and it seems you just violated your own words to stay out of it. I'll give you one for you to chuckle on the comparison of the NWT to the most modern English version.

NWT Luke 4:4 But Jesus answered him: “It is written, ‘Man must not live on bread alone.’”+

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/4/

New International Version
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”

English Standard Version
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”

Berean Study Bible
But Jesus answered, “It is written: ’Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus answered to him, "It has been written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

New American Standard Bible
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."

Contemporary English Version
Jesus answered, "The Scriptures say, 'No one can live only on food.'"

Good News Translation
But Jesus answered, "The scripture says, 'Human beings cannot live on bread alone.'"

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."

NET Bible
Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"

New Heart English Bible
Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"

So, first I'll quote the KJV to have a basis for comparison related to your claim:

Luke 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

This is what the KJV reads.

Here is the translation notes on this verse from the NET Bible:

Luke 4:4 4:4 b tc Most mss (A [D] Θ Ψ [0102] f1, 13 33 latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (all ' epi panti rhemati theou , "but by every word from God"), an assimilation to Matt 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deut 8:3). The shorter reading is found in א B L W 1241 pc sa. There is no good reason why scribes would omit the rest of the quotation here. The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the original wording in Luke.
sn A quotation from Deut 8:3. Jesus will live by doing God's will, and will take no shortcuts.
(NET Bible Notes - Full Notes)

In other words, a scribe apparently inserted the rest of the verse, based on the wording of Matt 4:4 (a parallel passage), either because he included it from memory based on Matt 4:4, or he wanted to harmonize Matthew's account with Luke's account. Unfortunately, such mistakes occur between parallel accounts between the gospels.

If you think the translation is malicious, then you must explain why the translators didn't edit Matt 4:4 in a similar manner.

The same type of error happens in other places between the gospel accounts in various manuscripts. These manuscripts are then copied, and the error is perpetuated.

This is why the NET Bible notes are handy....they give details about the various manuscripts which are used to determine the translation, and provides a basis for the translator's decision. And, the decisions are reasonable, except in false translations like the New World Translation. In this case, the NWT was similar to the modern translations, maybe because they copied a modern translation except where they edited it to reinforce their false doctrines.

I encourage folks to read some good books on the way that Scripture has been preserved. James White, DA Carson, and Craig Blomberg.

Craig Blomberg's book Can We Still trust the Bible? would be a good start.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the way, I don't mean to disrespect the KJV translators. They did a fine job considering the limited number of late manuscripts they had available to them (less than 10). But, the modern translations are based on over 5000 manuscripts, some that are much older and closer to the original manuscripts.

Beware the propaganda of KJV Onlyists. I would recommend reading the books by DA Carson or James White concerning the KJV Only controversy.

And, if they make a claim, take the same measure and apply it to themselves. As an example, it's a common claim (and fact) that an English stylist involved with the NIV was a lesbian. However, they fail to tell you that Erasmus, the author of the Textus Receptus NT used for the KJV, wrote romantic letters to a younger man and was a Roman Catholic scholar, and King James, who commissioned the Bible, was likely a bisexual.

Yet, I believe the KJV served God's purposes for a long season. It is not to be enshrined, though.

I find this one tool so useful in discerning rhetoric...taking the person's claims and applying it to themselves.

By the way, the lesbian stylist was only a contractor, and did no translation. Additionally, her services were no longer used after they found out her issues. Unfortunately, I believe there was also another homosexual on the staff but he isn't so well known.

At any rate, like I said, Erasmus wrote love letters to a younger man, and King James was likely homosexual and was definitely Roman Catholic, so if they want to look for boogie mans on the modern translation side, they need to deal with those guys issues, too.

By the way, I prefer the ESV and not the NIV anyways, although I use it for comparison as it is more of a thought-for-thought translation and it balances out the word-for-word nature of the ESV.

 

[fredoheaven]

So, first I'll quote the KJV to have a basis for comparison related to your claim:

Luke 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

This is what the KJV reads.

Here is the translation notes on this verse from the NET Bible:

Luke 4:4 4:4 b tc Most mss (A [D] Θ Ψ [0102] f1, 13 33 latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (all ' epi panti rhemati theou , "but by every word from God"), an assimilation to Matt 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deut 8:3). The shorter reading is found in א B L W 1241 pc sa. There is no good reason why scribes would omit the rest of the quotation here. The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the original wording in Luke.
sn A quotation from Deut 8:3. Jesus will live by doing God's will, and will take no shortcuts.
(NET Bible Notes - Full Notes)

In other words, a scribe apparently inserted the rest of the verse, based on the wording of Matt 4:4 (a parallel passage), either because he included it from memory based on Matt 4:4, or he wanted to harmonize Matthew's account with Luke's account. Unfortunately, such mistakes occur between parallel accounts between the gospels.

If you think the translation is malicious, then you must explain why the translators didn't edit Matt 4:4 in a similar manner.

The same type of error happens in other places between the gospel accounts in various manuscripts. These manuscripts are then copied, and the error is perpetuated.

This is why the NET Bible notes are handy....they give details about the various manuscripts which are used to determine the translation, and provides a basis for the translator's decision. And, the decisions are reasonable, except in false translations like the New World Translation. In this case, the NWT was similar to the modern translations, maybe because they copied a modern translation except where they edited it to reinforce their false doctrines.

I encourage folks to read some good books on the way that Scripture has been preserved. James White, DA Carson, and Craig Blomberg.

Craig Blomberg's book Can We Still trust the Bible? would be a good start.

The NEt simply presented evidence for both the longer and shorter reading of the given text and we have the evidence supporting the longer reading found in three families of manuscripts (Western, Cae-sarean, Byzantine). Aleph and B and their associates omit the words, together with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions.

Of course, the shorter reading theory came from Dr. Hort. This theory is based on the assumption to validate the primacy of Alexandrian text and Alexandrian thinking but these are challenged by the early church fathers long before the scribes of Vaticanus and its allies known for mutilating the words of God. For instance,

Irenaeus, a second-century bishop in Gaul, wrote extensively on the condition of the early Church. He said with regards to Marcion, one of the chief heretics of the early Church:

"Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened." (Against Heresies, III.xii.12; pp. 434-5)

Your assumption, that the scribe had some kind of a memory gap in Matthew 4:4 is basically false and very comical. No! this is not a product just to harmonize it is the leading of the Holy Spirit because Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 were based on Deut. 8:3 and the scribe who originally wrote it are the Apostles. The question is when they were later copied. If the shorter reading is correct then we have the discrepancy with Matthew 4:4, especially with O.T. Deut. 8:3 which is the basis of Matthew and Luke. And now you are now telling me, we have an erroneous Bible over the fact that it isn’t, hence, you are coming to me with mistakes of the Bible as according to you have just said to be true that you have mistaken Bibles.

Of course, as evidence pointed out, with the longer reading of Luke 4:4, then I am sure, I am confident that I have scripture full and complete in the passage of Luke 4:4. Well for sure as a comparison of the verses over the passages we mentioned supports the longer rather than the shorter. O, I will be glad if you re-think your position base on NET commentary or notes. What about stick to the scriptures and what it says and the evidence that matches it?



BTW, you are turning the thread into a KJV only debate, nevertheless, I stay on the line not to do it. I was just reasoning base on the evidence. Also, it seems you have nothing to say about JW’s and the newer version comparison which I gave you one by your request. Umm, ok, I understand your stand being dependent on others without actual examination or observation.



Another witness is the work of Tatian in his Diassateron probably written in 160 AD is also an eye-witness to the fact of the longer reading of Luke 4:4.

4 Jesus answered him, It is written, Man cannot live by bread only; there is life for him in all the words that come from God.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk004.htm

 

[fredoheaven]

By the way, the lesbian stylist was only a contractor, and did no translation. Additionally, her services were no longer used after they found out her issues. Unfortunately, I believe there was also another homosexual on the staff but he isn't so well known.

At any rate, like I said, Erasmus wrote love letters to a younger man, and King James was likely homosexual and was definitely Roman Catholic, so if they want to look for boogie mans on the modern translation side, they need to deal with those guys issues, too.

By the way, I prefer the ESV and not the NIV anyways, although I use it for comparison as it is more of a thought-for-thought translation and it balances out the word-for-word nature of the ESV.

Out of topic. I refrain to comment on this one...

 

[fredoheaven]

The NEt simply presented evidence for both the longer and shorter reading of the given text and we have the evidence supporting the longer reading found in three families of manuscripts (Western, Cae-sarean, Byzantine). Aleph and B and their associates omit the words, together with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions.

Of course, the shorter reading theory came from Dr. Hort. This theory is based on the assumption to validate the primacy of Alexandrian text and Alexandrian thinking but these are challenged by the early church fathers long before the scribes of Vaticanus and its allies known for mutilating the words of God. For instance,

Irenaeus, a second-century bishop in Gaul, wrote extensively on the condition of the early Church. He said with regards to Marcion, one of the chief heretics of the early Church:

"Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened." (Against Heresies, III.xii.12; pp. 434-5)

Your assumption, that the scribe had some kind of a memory gap in Matthew 4:4 is basically false and very comical. No! this is not a product just to harmonize it is the leading of the Holy Spirit because Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 were based on Deut. 8:3 and the scribe who originally wrote it are the Apostles. The question is when they were later copied. If the shorter reading is correct then we have the discrepancy with Matthew 4:4, especially with O.T. Deut. 8:3 which is the basis of Matthew and Luke. And now you are now telling me, we have an erroneous Bible over the fact that it isn’t, hence, you are coming to me with mistakes of the Bible as according to you have just said to be true that you have mistaken Bibles.

Of course, as evidence pointed out, with the longer reading of Luke 4:4, then I am sure, I am confident that I have scripture full and complete in the passage of Luke 4:4. Well for sure as a comparison of the verses over the passages we mentioned supports the longer rather than the shorter. O, I will be glad if you re-think your position base on NET commentary or notes. What about stick to the scriptures and what it says and the evidence that matches it?



BTW, you are turning the thread into a KJV only debate, nevertheless, I stay on the line not to do it. I was just reasoning base on the evidence. Also, it seems you have nothing to say about JW’s and the newer version comparison which I gave you one by your request. Umm, ok, I understand your stand being dependent on others without actual examination or observation.



Another witness is the work of Tatian in his Diassateron probably written in 160 AD is also an eye-witness to the fact of the longer reading of Luke 4:4.

4 Jesus answered him, It is written, Man cannot live by bread only; there is life for him in all the words that come from God.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk004.htm

Actually, the Hebrew scripture refuted the NT Greek source of mostly newer versions cited in Luke 4:4. Omission or an addition?
The complete Hebrew scripture as originally penned by Moses has the "every word of God"... simple.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Actually, the Hebrew scripture refuted the NT Greek source of mostly newer versions cited in Luke 4:4. Omission or an addition?
The complete Hebrew scripture as originally penned by Moses has the "every word of God"... simple.

I don't have any problem with the longer rendering as it is included in Matthew 4:4. However, the reason it is included in Luke 4:4 is due to a scribal error. The original text of Luke didn't include it. Just because Luke excluded something doesn't mean that it isn't true..each gospel writer had their own unique focus. I don't expect all the gospels to be the same.

Doesn't matter anyways. I'm not going to use the KJV as it is dedicated to a bisexual English King, and even carries his name, and the underlying Greek text was created by a gay Roman Catholic priest.

However, the primary reason is because the Textus Receptus is inferior because it uses only a few manuscripts that were much more recent. The additions crept in from a number of sources, including the one I mentioned, plus the inclusion of margin notes of manuscript owners into later manuscripts.

I don't think it's totally irrelevant if one wants the best text, but the differences are so minor it doesn't make that much difference. If someone wants to read KJV and translate the archaic English to modern English, I don't care. They can still become saved, they just have to work harder for it, and be a little misinformed due to the changes in word usage.

For instance the word "conversation" in KJV English means "citizenship" in modern English.

If someone is really concerned about this, I would suggest reading the books I mentioned.

 

[fredoheaven]

I don't have any problem with the longer rendering as it is included in Matthew 4:4. However, the reason it is included in Luke 4:4 is due to a scribal error. The original text of Luke didn't include it. Just because Luke excluded something doesn't mean that it isn't true..each gospel writer had their own unique focus. I don't expect all the gospels to be the same.

Doesn't matter anyways. I'm not going to use the KJV as it is dedicated to a bisexual English King, and even carries his name, and the underlying Greek text was created by a gay Roman Catholic priest.

However, the primary reason is because the Textus Receptus is inferior because it uses only a few manuscripts that were much more recent. The additions crept in from a number of sources, including the one I mentioned, plus the inclusion of margin notes of manuscript owners into later manuscripts.

I don't think it's totally irrelevant if one wants the best text, but the differences are so minor it doesn't make that much difference. If someone wants to read KJV and translate the archaic English to modern English, I don't care. They can still become saved, they just have to work harder for it, and be a little misinformed due to the changes in word usage.

For instance the word "conversation" in KJV English means "citizenship" in modern English.

If someone is really concerned about this, I would suggest reading the books I mentioned.

I would understand you, you're merely guessing but thanks anyway...

God bless

 

[Dino246]

If you look at my post on #33 in response to UWC and my actual post on #53, did I mention/cited the KJV? seems you assume too much.

"I see it differently than the longer ending of Mark is by far has a solid backup of Greek manuscripts, an ancient translation of Greek predating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. and has many backings of the early church fathers. "However, if someone thinks differently on that issue, I just let them alone" unless one persists. "

Did I say anything about the longer ending of Mark? Is that my primary point? No, and no.

 

[Dino246]

Pretty cool, but we will set aside your attack on the KJV...

A statement of fact regarding the linguistic abilities of the KJV translators is not an "attack on the KJV".

smh...