BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

[Dino246]

Scripture can foresee...And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Scripture talked to Pharaoh through Moses...For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

This doesn’t support your position.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

783,137 words
Whatever your opinions, one thing is absolutely certain: the King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words.Dec 8, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over 780 thousand words wow. Surprised there were not more mistakes made. Nice to understand we have more information today and can make some corrections. I accept, right or wrong, those guys did the best they could with the information they had. What we can se as a mistake today may not have been considered a mistake a few hundred years ago.
Having never read about candlesticks v. oil lampstands very interesting.. Oil often represents spirit . That alone makes oil lampstands a winner.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Slightly off topic but John's prophetic vision is building on Zechariah's earlier one.

Zech 4
The angel who was speaking with me then returned and roused me as one awakened out of sleep. 2 He asked me, “What do you see?”

I replied, “I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top. The lampstand also has seven lamps at the top with seven
spouts for each of the lamps. 3 There are also two olive trees beside it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.”

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

783,137 words
Whatever your opinions, one thing is absolutely certain: the King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words.Dec 8, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

let's do the Math:


how many total words in the Hebrew Tanakh [Old Testament]?

The Tanakh consists of 79,847 Hebrew words and 304,805 Hebrew alphabet characters.


how many total words in the Greek Text of the New Testament?

New Testament has only 138,162 words drawn from 5,437 words.[2]

79,847 (OT)
+
138,162 (NT)
=
218,009 Total Word for OT+NT


that means the KJV Bible has added

783,137
-
218,009
=
565,128 words added

how can the KJV Bible be called the Inspired Word of God when it has added 565,128 MORE words than what the original Inspired Texts have?

 

[Beckie]

let's do the Math:


how many total words in the Hebrew Tanakh [Old Testament]?

The Tanakh consists of 79,847 Hebrew words and 304,805 Hebrew alphabet characters.


how many total words in the Greek Text of the New Testament?

New Testament has only 138,162 words drawn from 5,437 words.[2]

79,847 (OT)
+
138,162 (NT)
=
218,009 Total Word for OT+NT


that means the KJV Bible has added

783,137
-
218,009
=
565,128 words added

how can the KJV Bible be called the Inspired Word of God when it has added 565,128 MORE words than what the original Inspired Texts have?

Asking a Mexican friend one time to tell me the exact translation of wristwatch. His answer was 'a clock you ware on your wrist'. He did not add words . With a little thought one could understand languages do not always translate word for word.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Asking a Mexican friend one time to tell me the exact translation of wristwatch. His answer was 'a clock you ware on your wrist'. He did not add words . With a little thought one could understand languages do not always translate word for word.

i understand!

but word for word, English has a word that matches each Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word in the Bible. outside of matching word for word, i wonder where the rest comes into play? i guess how its being used.

 

[Beckie]

16 Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado á su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

1
בראשית ברא אלוהים את
שמים וארץ

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

7 And there are Three who give testimony


7 Και υπάρχουν Τρεις που δίνουν μαρτυρία

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

John 11:35 Jesus wept.


Ιωάννης 11:35 Ο Ιησούς έκλαψε.



35 Yeshua wept.

35 Ο Ιεσιούα έκλαψε.

 

[Beckie]

1 JOHN 5:7-8 TGV
There are three witnesses [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; these three are one; and there are three witnesses on earth]: The Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three bear unanimous witness.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

i don't see many reason for extra words like the kjv has added. from Hebrew to Greek it's a difference between 2 more or 1 less when it comes down to translation.

 

[Beckie]

i don't see many reason for extra words like the kjv has added. from Hebrew to Greek it's a difference between 2 more or 1 less when it comes down to translation.

then dont use the KJ. IF i remember correctly the originals dont us punctuation. so skip that

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

7 For there are three that testify
8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are one.

7 Διότι τρεις είναι αυτοί που μαρτυρούν
8 το Πνεύμα, το νερό και το αίμα — και αυτά
τρία είναι ένα.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Early witnesses in 1 John 5:7
View attachment 242766

Maybe someone else addressed this already and I missed it since this thread is 15 pages long, but I'll add John Chrysostom to those who preached from this passage. That goes back to the forth century. There were plenty of texts, albeit mostly Latin, that were used. He taught verse by verse, not referring to it as a margin note.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There were plenty of texts, albeit mostly Latin, that were used. He taught verse by verse, not referring to it as a margin note.

Many Christians do not realize that the Old Latin manuscripts (before Jerome) are as valuable as the Greek manuscripts in giving us the true text of the New Testament. No one really knows why 1 John 5:7 is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but that does not invalidate this verse at all. In fact its absence renders that passage meaningless and nonsensical.

The other side of the coin is that the Critical Text and all modern Bible versions have blatantly omitted Acts 8:37, even though its absence renders the passage meaningless and nonsensical. However, there was a doctrinal bias here to nullify the fact that only believers' baptism is valid.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Many Christians do not realize that the Old Latin manuscripts (before Jerome) are as valuable as the Greek manuscripts in giving us the true text of the New Testament. No one really knows why 1 John 5:7 is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but that does not invalidate this verse at all. In fact its absence renders that passage meaningless and nonsensical.

The other side of the coin is that the Critical Text and all modern Bible versions have blatantly omitted Acts 8:37, even though its absence renders the passage meaningless and nonsensical. However, there was a doctrinal bias here to nullify the fact that only believers' baptism is valid.

I agree. The majority text only looks at the Greek if I remember correctly. The Received Text looks at the other languages too.
It's not like the false claim that it was some marginal note.
The point you make is truly a valid one.
The same thought flows and it's not disjointed from the context.

Acts 8:37 Is another one that fits the rest of the Bible, however it doesn't fit baptismal regeneration. Philip wasn't leading the man to Christ if his faith was in baptism. It makes no sense without verse 37.
First believe on Christ, then baptism naturally follows in identifying with Him.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

No one really knows why 1 John 5:7 is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but that does not invalidate this verse at all.

of course it does!

the Greek Text is everything when concerning the New Testament.
the Word of God IS NOT based off Roman Catholic [[((LATIN))]] tradition! it is based off the Greek Text! John [[((NEVER WROTE))]] wrote the COMMA, the RCC created it.

if the Roman Catholic Tradition is so valuable over the Word of God, i suggest you pray to Mary, your Queen of Heaven!

 

[Billyd]

I think this is a good place to insert a piece of KJV Bible trivia. Did you know that King James was a Free Mason?

https://itssinstupid.tripod.com/JAMES_VI.HTM

Well, maybe/maybe not, but it is an interesting question.

 

[Dirtman]

 

[fredoheaven]

The wikipedia article is much more informative. It explains how some forms of early candle making goes back to before the first century but it was not used in Rome or in Israel and we know that it did not become popular until the middle ages.

But it comes down to the fact that the Greek word John used was the word for oil fed lamps. Which was what they used in John's day.

So why translate it candlesticks when that was not the Greek word used? One must ask the KJV scholars why they chose to use an English word that they knew did not have the same meaning as the Greek word that John used?

Was it because they thought that their readers would not understand what the oil fed lamp looked like so they chose an English word that would conjour up and image that the reader could relate to?

If so this would be an example of not being the most accurate word for what John wrote and intended. Oil fed lamp would have been a better choice if the wanted to educate the reader on 1st century image of that Greek word. But just lamp and lampstand would be more accurate than candlestick which is not what John wrote in Greek. He used no such word. If he had seen wax candlesticks he would have used a different Greek word than the one he used which was always used to describe the oil fed lamp of his day.

Finding evidence that there was some form of a wax fed light before the first century does not change this. John did not use such a word about a wax fed light. But there is no mystery about the fact that they did not use such lighting in Rome or Israel or even Europe at the time John wrote so archeological evidence of one in Egypt or China makes no difference.

Your argument is that it was not used in Rome and in Israel, so that in John’s day has not been used, instead it was an oil fed lamp?

I think this is not the fact as supposed.

1st, The Revelation of Jesus Christ written by John was on the Isle of Patmos, a Greek Island. While the candle may have not been used literally in the area, but, it was already known in the Greeks long before John did write Revelation. This give me a fair thought that if it is known by the Greeks why not the Apostle John? He may be not but he knows it there is already a candle being used and a candlestick.

The Symposium by Xenophon (306 BC) gives clear about this thing.

We need not fare far afield to light on marvels, if that is our object. All about us here is full of marvel; we can begin at once by wondering, why it is the candle gives a light by dint of its bright flame, while side by side with it the bright bronze vessel gives no light, but shows within itself those other objects mirrored. (1) Or, how is it that oil, being moist and liquid, keeps that flame ablaze, but water, just because it is liquid, quenches fire. But no more do these same marvels tend to promote the object of the wine-cup. (2)

(1) Cf. "Mem." IV. vii. 7. Socrates' criticism of Anaxagoras' theory

with regard to the sun.



(2) Lit. "work to the same end as wine."



https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1181/1181-h/1181-h.htm

Second, Is is true that Israel was not even used in John’s day? This time, I look up the Jewish library and found that it was literally in the temple. Evidence traced there was a candle stick. Here’s the link.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3964-candlestick

Thirdly, it might be that candle, or candlestick is synonymously or used as the same thing as a lamp or lampstand, however, it if was, a candle or candle stick that does provide a clear picture than a lamp or lampstand speaking of today. So far, many today’s rebuttal that the KJB does not provide the very meaning today is a hopeless argument if your argument is said to be true. KJB does provide far clearer than one thought.

The ISB online, recognize the word candlestick giving it literally as a lampstand yet the actual menorah so happens it was not but a candle as it is today.

https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/candlestick-the-golden.html





https://www.timesofisrael.com/7-facts-about-menorahs-the-most-enduring-symbol-of-the-jewish-people/





Now, the Greek used was λυχνία is recognized by Thayer, Winer, and Strong as a candlestick. Since we have it either lampstand or candlestick, that makes them a tie but I would not settle it less. “Comparing scriptures” is within the context of the Bible, so we can settle this once.

https://biblehub.com/greek/3087.htm

Greek is understood in other languages;

Latin = candelabra or candlestick.

Syriac = translated by Etheridge, Lamsa, Murdock as candlestick

Spanish= RV has candeleros for candlestick

French = Segondo has chandeliers for candlestick

German = Luther has Leuchter for candlestick



Lamp has another Greek which is lampas and this may finally settle this thingy. God bless