Actually, the differences are quite numerous and not just "spelling cap and punctuation"
See Rick Norris' booklet:
Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?
It is available from a on-demand publisher:www.lulu.com
Actually, the differences are quite numerous and not just "spelling cap and punctuation"
See Rick Norris' booklet:
Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?
It is available from a on-demand publisher:www.lulu.com
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,695
- Reaction score
- 2,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
You mean this argument?
In Luke 2:33 we read, “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him” (KJV). In the NIV, it is like this, “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.” Do you see the problem here with the NIV? The NIV makes Joseph the father of Jesus!
This is only problematic for the NIV if you ignore the NIV:
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27)
And then, a little lower down:
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” (1:34)
In my edition of the NIV, 1:26-27 is on page 723, while 2:33 is on 725. They are literally one turn of the page apart. If you read that one or two paragraphs in chapter 1 where Luke calls Mary a "virgin," then you'd have to have the memory of the proverbial goldfish to think the NIV denied the virgin birth by the time you'd read chapter 2.
This isn't a theological issue. It's a cynical accusation levelled by people who think Christians are too stupid to remember what they just read a minute ago.
But the KJV doesn't actually solve this problem:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (2:41)
Parents typically come in pairs. If Mary was Jesus's mother, what parent did that make Joseph? Well, Mary tells us:
His mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (2:48)
KJV-onlyists get around this by saying Mary needed to be "corrected"; this is stupid. Did she misremember the circumstances of his birth? Did she forget about the angels? Was the Virgin Mary denying the virgin birth?
So this argument is ridiculous.
Jesus was, "as was supposed," the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23 KJV). Presumably the details of the virgin birth were not widely known and anyone who could count to nine presumed him to be Joseph's son out of wedlock. Call Joseph Jesus' stepfather, foster father, adoptive father, or what you will: he raised Jesus, taught him the family trade, and had parental authority over him (cf. Luke 2:51). He was, understood correctly, Jesus's de facto father. That was the role he fulfilled in Jesus's earthly family. Of course, KJV-onlyists have no interest in understanding properly.
Also, it sidesteps your original assertion that Westcott and Hort denied the virgin birth. They had nothing to do with the NIV.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,695
- Reaction score
- 2,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
... does not address the issue at hand, concerning their belief in the virgin birth.
Care to respond to what I actually said, instead?
D
Dr. Huk-N-Duck
Guest
I don’t think the concern is so much the dilemma that a veteran Christian might face, but rather the unbeliever or brand new believer. Anyway…switching gears slightly, would you see an issue with John 3:36 (KJV) vs the same verse in the NASV?
KJV: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
NASV: The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
The KJV translators took a liberty in translation. They are not directly translating the word apeithwn (which means to disobey).
This is an excellent example of the KJV translators allowing for some dynamic equivalence.
This is an excellent example of the KJV translators allowing for some dynamic equivalence.
I have heard of Oneness Pentecostal but I never heard them applying 1 John 5:7 to mean Jesus is the One is beyond me. Course, I am not up on everything Oneness Pentecostal.
This site exposes Oneness Pentecostal by applying 1 John 5:7 to reprove it. Exposing Oneness Pentecostalism: The Biblical Godhead
Looking for The Oneness Pentecostal that apply 1 John 5:7 as you seem to believe that they do is found here; How Can Three Be One? (1 John 5:7) So you are right. They managed to wrest the scriptures for their end deceit. However though, by ignoring the other scriptures like the 3 witnesses in the earth, they really cannot apply that as One Person God's Witness.
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Is the Spirit and the water and the blood are the same witness? No, as they are 3 different witnesses that agree. So neither can the 3 Witnesses in Heaven be counted as a One Person's witness.
There is a necessity for why 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is originally scripture because of how John writes about the witness factor in the gospel of John.
If a lone witness bears witness of himself, his witness is not true per John 5:31 KJV
If a lone witness speaks of himself in seeking his own glory, there is unrighteousness in him but of he speaks of the one that sent him in seeking his glory, there is no unrighteousness in that witness. John 7:18
It takes two witnesses to make a testimony as true. John 8:17
So for 1 John 5:9 to be true as God's witness in Heaven being greater than the witness of men's in the earth, there has to be Three Witnesses in Heaven within that Godhead as Three Persons, bearing testimony of the Son in seeking the glory of the Son for why the witness of God is greater than the witness of men in the earth.
What does Strong's Concordance say? "from apeiqhV - apeithes 545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely):--not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving." from Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary
As for the contention of John 3:36 we compare at this link: John 3:36 KJV & NIV & NASB & ESV & TLB where one may find that not obeying is by not believing Him whereas in the TLB, we find it separates believing and obeying as if not quite the same thing even though it can be also inferred as meaning the same thing when in light of the positive response is to trust the Son.
When you see how we are saved by believing in Him then the disobeying is by not believing in Him. Same message, I would say and the KJV did not take liberty in light of Strong's Concordance.
I would say that can serve as an example of how today Greek scholars can disagree with their own personal translation among each other as Strong's Concordance confirms the KJV translators, but Strongs's Concordance is not always right.
The confirmation is the first half of the verse as the latter half has to mean the opposite of doing the first half of that verse in John 3:36. But one can get lost in translation when doing it by oneself whereas there were over 50 translators divided into 8 groups, all checking their individual work in that group and then passing their work to the next group to be checked over by them too.
I would rely on the KJV translators but more on Jesus Christ to confirm His word to us individually as we are to prove everything by Him, including how we rightly divide the word of truth in the KJV.
Well, so far, I agree with you that the charge regarding Westcott & Hort's theology on their stance on the virgin birth is nowhere to be found, however, you did address Westcott's & Hort's theology in general for which I was expounding on, since it involves more than what appears to be a spurious charge on their supposed stance on the virgin Mary.
I believe the door was open to approach their theology on how they viewed the word of God and the occult that it can and has effected their translation like per Romans 8:26-27. That counts against them for relying on them to translate scripture for you..
For those interested in seeing how Westcott & Hort view the scriptures and their involvement in the occult; see this link Westcott & Hort: their heresies and occult activities
One's treasured ideologies will affect his translation, and interpretation.
Anti-KJVO can wind up spewing hogwash on their end too.
I can recognize hogwash and agree it is hogwash as supposedly claimed by anti-KJVO saying as coming from KJVO.
Can anti-KJVO recognize hogwash and call on it coming from their side of the argument like that false charge of King James being gay and had the Bible changed? seems like KJVO or I are the only ones that had to disprove that spurious claim when the scriptures regarding homosexuality as a sin are still in the KJV and no different than what modern bibles has it either.
may the Lord help you to prove everything by Jesus Christ & not accept anything at face value on either side of the discussion.
I can recognize hogwash and agree it is hogwash as supposedly claimed by anti-KJVO saying as coming from KJVO.
Can anti-KJVO recognize hogwash and call on it coming from their side of the argument like that false charge of King James being gay and had the Bible changed? seems like KJVO or I are the only ones that had to disprove that spurious claim when the scriptures regarding homosexuality as a sin are still in the KJV and no different than what modern bibles has it either.
may the Lord help you to prove everything by Jesus Christ & not accept anything at face value on either side of the discussion.
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mark 1:15
Did you obey what the Son said in Mark 1:15?
D
Dr. Huk-N-Duck
Guest
That’s an interesting question.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,690
- Reaction score
- 1,820
- Points
- 113
And I'm not falling for your acting ignorant of colleges/institutions that do. Maybe you need to try another pigeon. This one ain't ripe for the slaughter yet.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,690
- Reaction score
- 1,820
- Points
- 113
Not really. Honest translators translate according to the underlying texts they are using without regard for personal ideology. But, many don't like to admit that.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,695
- Reaction score
- 2,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
No, better yet, why don't you do your own homework?
Present your evidence of their heresies, along with citations from their works. As I said, I've got facsimiles of many of their books. Let's see if your charges hold water, shall we? After all, the onus is on you to substantiate them.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,695
- Reaction score
- 2,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Avery is a big fish in a small pond. He's all over the Web defending the "pure Bible," particularly the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), which most hardcore KJV-onlyists claim is necessary for the biblical proof of the Trinity. (It isn't.) The ironic part is that Avery is anti-Trinitarian. He won't come right out and admit it, of course. But when I first encountered him online, around 15 years ago, he was going by the username "Praxean." Praxeas was, of course, a 2nd-century modalist: what we'd call "Oneness" today.
Avery has also beclowned himself by going all in on the conspiracy theory that Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th-century manuscript of nearly the complete New Testament, is actually a 19th-century forgery. Though this did score him a speaking gig one year at D. A. Waite's Dean Burgon Society annual conference.
There's all sorts of Averian treasure to be found here in the Bible Versions forum. Of special note is the thread from about 10 years ago where he insisted that orthodox Trinitarianism affirms that Jesus was not a "human person." His favourite pasttime seems to be refusing to admit error, ever, and devising elaborate verbal gymnastics routines to facilitate his hobby.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,695
- Reaction score
- 2,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I don't see it. Reading Luke 2:33 out of context and ignoring what other passages say (like 1:27) is reading the Bible like a stack of random cue cards, rather than literature.
Such people need to be taught how to read the Bible properly. It's not the translation's fault if they don't.
To disobey is the primary definition of ἀπειθέω, as FSSL pointed out. Strong's, Thayer's, and BDAG all agree on that. It's the KJV that's off. The translators probably took a little liberty to make it read nicely ("believeth"/"believeth not"), but it's not strictly accurate.
@HukNduck
Obeying is by believing. Repenting is by believing in Him. Peter had preached the same gospel to the Jews as he did to the Gentiles.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Peter said to the Gentiles that by believing in Him is how they shall receive the remission of sins and they did and got born again of the Spirit.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Peter preached the same message to the Jews that had crucified Jesus in unbelief and they were pricked in their hearts wondering what they were to do and so "Repent" was by turning from unbelief in Him TO believing in Him in order for the Jews to be saved.
The very same gospel Paul preach in Romans 10:8-17 KJV
Last edited:
When you know not all of them do, is why you should provide at least one example that do. Otherwise why say it unless you have one example right off the top of your head?
Last edited:
@AverageJoe
The link was provided. That is the homework and source. Westcott & Hort: their heresies and occult activities
The web site listed their quotes and at the bottom of the page are the references from the sources of their quotes.