KJV translators weren't KJV only!

[Dino246]

You probably should look up a term before you call people names.

I am not ignorant of the meaning of the word, and the sense in which I used it is exactly consistent with the dictionary definition. You claim to believe the KJV is God's word, but you reject it where convenient to your defense of the KJV as God's word, demonstrating that you don't actually believe what you claim.

 

[AandW]

That isn't proof. It isn't even evidence, because there is nothing stating that the words "could not" be translated. To me, it's a simpler explanation that specific words originally spoken in Aramaic (as opposed to Greek) were preserved in Aramaic precisely because they were unusual.

But there was a study done before on this topic from another forum.
Anyways, it was an independent theological reseach done that claimed, the words in Aramaic were hard for the Greeks to translate, but the Greek could be translated by Aramaic because Aramaic has every word that the Greek has PLUS MORE.

Seems rather clear and obvious at that point why those Aramaic Words [Spoken] by Peter, [Written] by Mark, (we know this information from Papias, one of the Apostle John's Disciples) ...were not translated, because Mark's Greek Language had [no words] in their own Language to apply.

 

[Dino246]

The Sinaiticus is corrupt. The KJV does not use it.

The KJV does not "use" the Sinaiticus because the latter had not been discovered in 1604; no other reason is relevant.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Is that all that matters? Does not God want us to have more truth? Then why have a Bible? Just have a couple of verses about salvation and let's call it a day...

I was addressing one particular thing that someone was making a meal of.
So in that context, yes, that is all that matters.

 

[AandW]

The Sinaiticus is corrupt.

Prove it?


It existed around 178 A.D. and had [THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT word for word in it]!

Only corruption could take place is by diverting from the most original source AVAILABLE!

 

[Dino246]

All I need is that one verse to know that God's word is truth. Yes, other verses support that doctrine, but only one verse is needed.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...that one verse is all I need for the truth that God created the heaven and the earth. Other verses support this truth, but the doctrine is found in one verse.

Is that all that matters? Does not God want us to have more truth? Then why have a Bible? Just have a couple of verses about salvation and let's call it a day...

Your inconsistency is noted.

 

[AandW]

Remember though, those later manuscripts were copies of copies. Mark could still have penned the original.

so, you are claiming that the copies of copies removed 8 Verses for their own delight?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yes, I believe God has preserved His words perfectly in the KJV. Every word is the correct word for English speakers.

Job 15
26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:
27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I believe the KJV is the exact English words I need. I speak English. I believer God has perfectly preserved His words in the English language through the KJV. You don't. That's fine. Just don't bash me for believing I hold God's word in my hands.

If it works for you that's great.

The problem is KJV onlyists who insist that anyone who uses a different translation isn't reading God's true word. Not only does that go against what the KJV translators themselves believed, but it's unkind and manipulative. This isn't that far from cult-like behavior really.

 

[AandW]

year 30 to 34 A.D. Spoken Word of God

year 47 to 95 A.D. the New Testament is Written

year 178 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus

year 1600's A.D. KJV



The Codex is basically put together 85 years after Revelation was written.

But the KJV is the TRUEST and MOST ACCURATE Bible

 

[ResidentAlien]

so, you are claiming that the copies of copies removed 8 Verses for their own delight?

No, you know better. I'm saying it's possible Mark wrote a first copy, then later wrote another version with a different ending, perhaps after getting more information from someone he felt was reliable.

The earlier manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are copies made from Mark's first version. The later manuscripts are copies made from his second version.

All this is speculative and no one really knows the answer. Personally, I believe the longer ending should be approached with some skepticism; but we can't rule out that it's legit.

 

[AandW]

No, you know better. I'm saying it's possible Mark wrote a first copy, then later wrote another version with a different ending, perhaps after getting more information from someone he felt was reliable.

The earlier manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are copies made from Mark's first version. The later manuscripts are copies made from his second version.

All this is speculative and no one really knows the answer. Personally, I believe the longer ending should be approached with some skepticism; but we can't rule out that it's legit.

I definitely agree Mark could have always been adding to what Peter was Teaching and Preaching.
When Rome decided they had enough of the Christians, who knows what got left unwritten, or some how jotted in captivity or before death. Even word of mouth to fellow prisoners and [best of all], Witnessing about Christ to those who are dipping you into a vat of boiling oil, or about to crucify or behead you. Things get passed along and sometimes come together. So we never really do know.

 

[rayzor]

Look up Matthew 18:11 again...

The new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David.

W

Look up Matthew 18:11 again...

The new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David.

It is a form of
po·et·ic li·cense
The freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.,,Elhanan means god shows grace,,dodo as a child

 

[John146]

I am not ignorant of the meaning of the word, and the sense in which I used it is exactly consistent with the dictionary definition. You claim to believe the KJV is God's word, but you reject it where convenient to your defense of the KJV as God's word, demonstrating that you don't actually believe what you claim.

Ive never rejected the KJV.

 

[John146]

Your inconsistency is noted.

Nice try, apples and oranges...try again.

 

[rayzor]

Look up Matthew 18:11 again...

The new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David.

Thank you John 146 It is a form of
po·et·ic li·cense
The freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.,,Elhanan means god shows grace,,dodo means one that is loved.Yes the brother of Goliath was added in the King James we know this by those words being at a obtuse angle

 

[MattforJesus]

You're making assumptions that have no basis in Scripture.

You will know if the theme of the KJV is off if you read through it for if there is problems you will detect it.

But I am not KJV only for I am not against the new translations but I am saying I do not have a problem with it.

 

[Katia]

Anyone would think that the KJV was written in around 40 AD the way some people speak of it. I rarely refer to it. Bible Hub has more than enough versions to suit anyone who takes God's word seriously. I suspect the preface was removed because it is scarcely intelligible to people unfamiliar with 17th century English.

Generally, I use only the KJV, because I am familiar with many of the debated passages. As you say, Bible Hub is there to find others if I need them.

 

[AandW]

Jul 14, 2021 — King James disliked the Geneva Bible, because he felt that the annotations in the margins were too Calvinist, and, more importantly, ...


So, instead, king James creates a Bible less CALVIN!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

 

[Dino246]

Ive never rejected the KJV.

You simply aren't cognizant of the way in which you have rejected the word of God, translated in the KJV.

Deuteronomy 25:13, Proverbs 20:10, Proverbs 20:23. ONE set of measures, not two. You use a different set of measures with the KJV than you do with other translations.

Nice try, apples and oranges...try again.

Not even remotely. In one post you claim that only one verse is needed; in the other, you claim that the whole word of God is needed. Apples to apples.