And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of was standardized. What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common.
Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare , darke , and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee , bee , and mooued instead of me , be , and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne , euill , and ftarres be according to present-day spelling?
See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran , evil , and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.
Textual Changes Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision.
They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: 1 the character of the changes, 2 the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and 3 the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible. The changes from the edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes.
They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted.
The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the edition of the KJV and later printings.
A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations.
But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal.
I am referring to Psalm where the edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text.
Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year , only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more. Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions.
They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations.
Yet, even with this great care, only approximately variations are named between the edition and modern copies. Remember that there were variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in Since there are almost chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter after years is one third, i. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar. The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them from modern alterations.
But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the corrections were made within a few years of the original printing.
Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in , one in , one in , eight in , five in , one in , two in , and one in That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. There is no "revision" issue. The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing.
All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation.
Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that! An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area.
Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the KJV and the date the change was made.
Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation "thing is it" to "thing it is" is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in The frequency of printing errors is average four errors in twelve chapters.
But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year That's approximately years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all and I mean all that has changed in years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized!
As stated before, the main purpose of the and Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the and editions was the standardization of spelling. Maybe now you see that the King James Version of has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text.
The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world.
This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.
An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition.
In order to be fair, spelling changes cometh to comes ; labour to labor ; etc. Even now, more than four centuries after its publication, the King James Bible a.
And even though Elizabeth had established the supremacy of the Anglican Church founded by her father, King Henry VIII , its bishops now had to contend with rebellious Protestant groups like the Puritans and Calvinists, who questioned their absolute power. By the time James took the throne, many people in England at the time were hearing one version of the Bible when they went to church, but were reading from another when they were at home.
So in , when a Puritan scholar proposed the creation of a new translation of the Bible at a meeting at a religious conference at Hampton Court, James surprised him by agreeing. Over the next seven years, 47 scholars and theologians worked to translate the different books of the Bible: the Old Testament from Hebrew, the New Testament from Greek and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. Much of the resulting translation drew on the work of the Protestant reformer William Tyndale , who had produced the first New Testament translation from Greek into English in , but was executed for heresy less than a decade later.
Published in , the King James Bible spread quickly throughout Europe. Because of the wealth of resources devoted to the project, it was the most faithful and scholarly translation to date—not to mention the most accessible. Whereas before, the Bible had been the sole property of the Church, now more and more people could read it themselves.
Actually, the Bible says in the New Testament that it is the fools who are chosen… So whether you want to be Old Testament atheists are fools or New Testament Christians are fools is up to you.
Morally speaking, there are far more Christians in prison and divorce courts, wars and witch trials than there have ever been atheists. Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? You list changes in the KJV version which you say change meanings. I suggest you get an unbiased person maybe an unsaved person to read the verses from both translations and see how many think even the majority change the meaning. Be interested in the results.
From my perspective there are maybe 4 that might be changed in meaning. I have seen this list many times and to me it is just plain obvious that they are nothing more than printing errors that were soon caught and corrected.
But the bible agnostics and Bible critics will hang on to this excuse and pretext for dear life. I run into these guys on the internet all the time.
Well, what about the American Bible Society statement? Now, with scanned in PDFs of old editions, and so on, we can more easily check these things. I was saved by my belief in the blood of Jesus, and baptised immersed wholly into water in the name of Jesus.
Now, in my experience, and research, I have come to be convicted of these points by the Holy Ghost:. Every man and woman must work hard, to prove their labor, and sacrifice themselves to Jesus. If this means asking questions about the true Bible for your salvation, and performing research, you must.
God commands us to. It is YOUR eternity, after all. I have compared various KJV versions with other translations. I used to be a Sorceror, magic user, a devil worshiper. That is really it.
In fact, I know less than most of the people posting on here. Therefore, I beseech you brethren, to listen to me, and listen to me good. I love all of the people on this earth. I also desire that everyone be saved by the blood of the Lamb. If you would like to ask me questions, or dialouge with me, Please please do not hesitate to send me an email to my personal address. Together we can pray, ask for Holy Ghost guidance, and learn of the Bible together. Second, the KJV is not the first English translation.
But I doubt you are. Perhaps your faith was misplaced. To the rest, I say, this should not be an issue for those who name the name of Christ. Enoch had no Bible, yet he walked with God. Abraham had no Bible but he believed God, and for that God called him righteous. Do you actually think that God would trust mankind to preserve His Word? Psalm Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away, but His words would never pass away.
Mt , Mk , Lk Meditate on that for awhile brothers and sisters. Use whatever translation you like. Then go read John and meditate some more. Then take the advice of the Apostle Paul to Timothy and …. Simple as that. You are part of the falling away making way for the Anti-christ. Frankly, most who comment here will not read and can not understand what others say and go at great lengths spewing their flawed reasoning.
To some, they have placed faith in a book based on what they have been programmed to believe. It seems likely if older texts have fewer and the newer texts more words, that is exactly what has happened. You would have to be insane to expect another version would match word for word? And, if we did we would worship it and not Him. The version has flaws and know what, so does the Much of the error is that word meaning changes over the years.
The other thing, often overlooked is translators were absolutely not Divinely inspired, if they were they would not inject their personal presupposed preconceived ideas into the work.
For example, in Hebrews in the KJV we find — For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Age being a period of time, such as the period of time the old Mosaic covenant was in effect. Watch out! Satan is trying to control you and take over your mind! Back to reality… how many of you have mastered the Greek? Or, how many know enough Greek to be dangerous?
I know most repeat what someone else has told them or they have read on the Internet. So, I use all three and compare what I read to several versions of Greek text as I learn how. You can point someone to Christ using any version, so pick one or all and get to it and stop trying to split hairs! Very informative blog Rick. That is a bad example you used to prove your point.
It can be confusing, but a study and work is what is needed. I think the Bible says something about a runner and winning a race.
I think that if I am to run in a race, I better study and practice. Pilate said it best when he said to the crowd, What is truth? As we can all see here as well, many want to state, give opinion, feel out loud, and still the question is not answered, What is truth? The truth is the truth no matter who states it, and only you reading this as well as the comments of the above, will come to the conclusion of what truth, truly is.
Only you can make that decision based on many facts or many fables. You have to admit that the idea of placing the book of truth amongst books of lies and then asking you to pick the book of truth would then make one think.
Is it the book all like, the book that looks good, or the book that no one wants? Jesus himself said that Broad wide is the gate to hell but narrow is the gate to heaven, paraphrased for you paraphrased junkies, look it up yourself. Would you not think that if this is true, so is the truth? The truth does not come easy, unless you get rid of your stinkin pride and ask God which book to pick, read, study, memorize, fight sin with, and above all serve God with.
My Suggestion is to pray ask God which book to use, not pray to your intellect, but God, then you will pick the Bible that is truly Gods Word. Well said Edward! Really Sherrie? Sounds like to you? Please pray God shows you what the Bible is saying not get the easier to read, and easier to understand bibles of the trash can. A translation a king told the translators how to translate some of the words… incorrectly. Some passages have NO Greek Textual support anywhere in the world, because they winged it.
And sadly the KJV reflects that change. No Sherrie. Stay away from THE truth in the original languages. Listen to Ed.
Job However, before we come to a conclusion that the meaning of the words in this verse are actually different between the and the , we must first determine what this passage is actually talking about first. Therefore, now that we have the meaning of what this passage is truly talking about we can then determine the core truth of this passage and see if the original is really all that different from the Okay, to compare this passage lets look at another key passage in Scripture that talks about helping others and about being a leader.
Now, what did Jesus say was the key in being the first or the greatest? It was being a servant of all Mark For he that is chief should be as one who does serve Luke In other words, he that is chief or a leader is one who serves or helps others. Which is stressing the same point by the order in which they are placed separated by a space and a comma.
For serving others proceeds being a true leader. So whether you choose to read the original or the version, this passage says the same thing. You could saved a whole bunch of time for us and trouble for your self by reading the NASB.
Now, first, we have to realize that this is Old English, and back then there was no standardization of spelling during this time period. So we cannot impose our spelling or grammar structure upon that of the times of Here is an example:. In other words, both these words can be used in a way that gives us added information about that thing we are talking about and both words can be used to convey the same thing. Thirdly, in addition to the Ark of the Covenant going before them, we know from Joshua itself and from the context of the surrounding passages that the and are both talking about the Lord passing before them, too.
How so? Well, Joshua says…. Now, in todays modern English, to add information that is not pertinent to the surrounding sentences or paragraph is improper grammar.
No, most certainly not. What this added information is telling us is not details of the Ark but details about our Lord. This lets us know that it was the Lord who is Lord over all the Earth who passes over before you and it was not just the Ark. Also, even if this sentence did not convey the point that it was the Lord who passed over before us, the surrounding passages makes this fact abundantly clear.
We can see that the passage in Joshua in both the and the is not attempting to convey a different message here, but they are both saying the same thing. Additionally, over 6 billion Bibles have been printed. I also like to peek in on this subject from time to time…and it has not progressed on many websites, including this one, over the years.
Yet He is exactly who is missing from most of what is said here. What a shame. Intellectual capacity will never be a substitute for a humble and sincere relationship and walk with the Savior. Jim — you hit the center of the middle of the bullseye!! Most christians are not aware that there is a basic difference in the textual base of all modern bibles and the traditional text KJV.
This was a fabricated text from the halls of Origin from agnostic Egypt! Why anyone with good sense would think some of the paraphrases of today that use vulgar and obscene language such as the Message is of God is beyond my comprehension.
I trust that version which has stood the test of time even with minor wording and spelling corrections …the KJV. Lumping all modern translations together makes you a liar. God wants us to get along and not judge one another.
The truth is in Christ. Whether the KJV is the only true Bible or not.. Let everyone be persuaded in his own mind. God is love. Sure, battle it out on your belief. Whether the devil will get ahead for your lack of understanding is your fault and in the end God wins.
If you think KJV is the truest then you believe that unto God. If someone thinks the NIV is the truest, they too believe it unto God.
The battling is an issue of pride and its really ugly to see.. And hear.. And someday we will all be judged based on our actions and reactions.. I think God wants us to keep His commandments and Love Him. May His Holy Spirit speak truth. Lets talk and speak our opinion.. You can get your point across and they too and hopefully in time the Spirit reveals it unto each one of us.
Rick has proven my belief to be true found here — [removed] , that the lack of understanding in our churches on the version issue, is blinding the lost from salvation. Psalms 2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Jesus is the WORD. God is not the author of confusion. There are only two logical conclusions that could be made. Either there is no true Word of God on earth for us today, or ONE 1 of the lines is right, and the others wrong.
Things that are different are not the same, whether someone would like to think so or not. People will believe what they want to believe, and they can convince themselves of anything if they really try hard enough. But to truly believe that Vat.
You have to really believe that the Revised Version was the first real Bible in English. There is no middle ground. It is different. Anyway, I have said enough. But to those who are not, please look deep inside yourselves. Please consider these thoughts, and also forgive me if there are any spelling errors, my keyboard is giving out on me.
I agree with the response of Joseph however he did not reply in regards to paragraph above…. I am thankful for the KJV Instead of men interping the Bible. God did not write bibles. If yes, is there a book that talks about this clearly? I feel you are all making a few assumptions that are incorrect or shall I say, you may want to consider; if you read the entire you will find in the front and the preface that, Monks helped translate.
They were also from all over world, they spoke different languages and spelled things according to their home regions. Next: these were and are not errors, in spelling or meaning. Monks were educated because they came from wealthy families but again, they were 2nd sons; they often spoke at least 3 languages and were well traveled. If the is not the word of God , then we do not have the word of God at all, The was translated as close as could be to the No one has the original lang.
So why argue over them all the new ones have not stood the test of time. The has been burned at the stake ,boiled in oil ,sawed asunder , ridaculed by men and it is still alive today, think about years ago we had crime and murder all the sins we hear of today, But most people lived by the KJV and they made it through life to now , Now with all the version in print ,A people running from one translation to find ways to make excuses for not doing what the KJV plainly tells them to do look at the shape our world is in, and all because we have moved away from what God has told us in his word, It has taken years, and the devil has not won the war and he never will, because he was defeats at calvary.
Look at all the preaching going on in our country today, and it is not changing , it is still on the road to destruction. If all the chruchs would get back to the word of God and LIVE by it we could come out of the rurt we are in. Why do you attack the KJ Bible? GOD used it to save more soul and start more churches than even the original Manuscripts. If you were ever saved, it is because someone preached the King James Bible to you or to the one that led you to Christ.
Romans —10 ESV — 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Pastor: God cares much much more about Jesus in your heart, than the Bible in in your hand.
Consider this reply for a Sunday sermon. On the other hand, If you consider this an attack that confirms my introductory. God bless you all! I wonder how inspired were the people involved in dividing the KJV into chapters by Langton,13th century and dividing the KJV chapters into verses by Estienne, 16th cent.
What is its significance or mystery, i may say. Everybody here will agree that it is an international language, Do you know that our GOD is the author of numbers-numerals. Gen , In the beginning God- thats the start of time and in numbers, first day, 2nd day, 3rd day and so on and so forth.
You know that an hour is divided into 60 minutes and every minute divided into 60 seconds- the average heart beat of a person, thus the Breath of God into our nostrils, Acts Do you know the measurements of The Ark of the Covenant is a cubit and a half and a cubit and a half plus the length two cubits and a half, Exo. What is that? Our God do not change, HE is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. Again how do we connect that in the KJV Bible.
By trade our Lord Jesus Christ was, is, The Carpenter, he is well versed in the use of angles, triangle and squares, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, degrees. But KJV Bible explains-reveals these to us. What why who when where. Just let these numerals and letters explains these to us. Donald V. Brillo , I know that you posted this comment over two years ago.
You do know that other versions of the Bible have chapters and verses, right? And that the vast majority of them there are a few exceptions use the same chapter and verse numbers that the KJV does, right? So that the math you gave to attempt to prove the KJV to be the one-and- only true Bible would also work on any of those other versions, right?
I have browsed many but not all of the blog posts so please forgive me if this issue has already been interjected into the conversation:. What about the Geneva Bible…the English translation before the KJV and the one upon which our country was founded? What makes the KJV or version more sacred or accurate than the version which our founding believing brethren based their faith?
My apology…I mistakenly said Nigerian. Thank you Rick Beckman for this excellent post. I find your arguments truthful and undeniable to an honest seeker.
Neither of which is true. Nor is the KJV being attacked but the onlyists position only. Wow, Rick, it has been five years since I commented on your blog and I just had a contact from it. I do sorrow over your move to agnosticism, and I will pray for you even if you do not believe.
Thanks for the chance to speak as men and for engaging me as a man even if we were on opposite sides of the issue at that time. It is often a heated exchange when speaking on issues concerning faith at any level because it is so personal. One of your commenters spake of my using obfuscation to basically overwhelm people and obscure the issue.
The fact is, you assisted in whetting my sword for engaging and meaningful dialogue on an issue over which I believed important to understand.
Thanks again for being willing to allow those with different positions or philosophies than you to speak freely on your blog without editing or deleting out comments; out would be rather easy to follow such an urge. Which translation did the first disciples of the early church use to bash each other over the head with? Are we called to convince of the truth by going out and obtaining theology degrees and writing long, exhaustive essays on the intricacies of ancient languages and their comparative translations?
This is so sad! According to this viewpoint there was no inspired Word of God until According to this view neither Moses, nor Paul, nor Jesus, Himself, had the written inspired Word of God at his disposal! This is nonsense! Like so many questions that dominate the fringes of American Christianity, the version war is really an American question. It has little relevance beyond our borders or our time period! God has used the King James translation in mighty ways. But many of us, who are born again believers, have decided that is time to move on.
God has used His Word in mighty ways in many versions and translations around the world for thousands of years! As a new believer matures in Christ in the USA, eventually he or she has to grapple with the problem of textual criticism.
With and open mind and investigating the issue for myself, I find that the work that honest, reverent scholars are doing in textual criticism does not and cannot weaken the message or doctrine of the truth. If the Word of God is alive, powerful and sharper than a sword, why would I want to share it in a way that seems out-dated and irrelevant to our modern life?
The actual words of the Bible will offend some. Koine Greek was the common international commercial language of the day. The New Testament did not have a strange, antiquated feel when it was penned!
Some could be accused of deleting the text of Scripture, the others could be accused of adding! God sees into the heart and the conscience. If I lean more towards Calvinism or Arminianism, God looks in my heart to judge my thoughts and actions.
God will be the judge of my actions. I bought a Colt model 45 hand gun in I do not see what the issue is between the and the The King James A. Not that hard unless you are an unbeliever. Your new, modified gun is a replica, not a gun. Their value is different because they are different. If you believe the KJV is the inspired Word of God then the King James that you own is not the inspired Word of God because it varies from the version see the above. For the vast majority of true believers on the planet those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Savior the KJV is not the inspired word of God.
Variations between versions are a very minor problem. Doctrinal differences from believers spring from interpretation, not from textual variants. The only changes in the version are those required to deal with the decline in the English language in the past century. Do you approve of the far more numerous changes made since then to deal with the changing language as well? If not, why not?
The version is perfectly readable even to modern deracinated people, who have suffered the degermanization of the mother tongue.
So your argument is that English changed more drastically in the years between and than it has in the couple of hundred years since ? God cares much much more about Jesus in your heart, than the Bible in in your hand. The was specifically to revise the New Testament into better conformance with the Stephanus Remember, the KJV of had no clear base text. This issue was resolved by a revision. So is the NKJV. If it took until the King James Version to be pure and best, then Psalm was a lie when written.
Or maybe only the seventh chapter of the seventh book of the Bible can be trusted? I see errors in your article. You may want to proof read it. The printing press in the s was problematic in a few ways. So, in some cases, being the Geneva was the most popular Bible of all time at that point, and somewhat memorized, some words could have accidentally been inserted. The printer also printed the Bishops Bible as well.
This is all on top of simple errors from hand setting every single letter, comma, period, colon, and semicolon. Try comparing a KJV in a s printing next time. D, sorry for the belated reply. All those tiny errors matter! KJV VS. I could imagine that I would have made many errors if I had that task. The text the Anglican Scholars penned, may not contain that error.
It was just an error of the printing process and does not represent the autographs. The theme of your article is to show that there were significant errors or changes of content. You made this assertion, and you gave some examples, of what you consider to be significant changes in content, between the and KJV.
I would like to know the criteria that you used to determine if these examples are indeed, significant changes in content. Notice, there is just one letter in difference between the two. Later in the revision, this typographical error was caught and corrected. This scenario seems considerably more likely, than your assertion that this is an example of a significant change in content. I am very skeptical that your example in Ps.
I strongly suspect Ps. As I took another look at your other examples, I thought in reality, many, if not most of these, could have been a typographical errors instead of a major, significant changes in the content of the text. In essence, I am not sure your examples are as clear cut as they may seem to be at first glance.
So this left me wondering and speculating, what criteria did you use the definitively identify your examples as genuine changes, instead of typographical printing errors. I have come up with some evaluatory criteria and checked your examples in the first article, but could come to no definitive conclusion as to which category the examples best fit into.
I can see if one had access to the autographs of the translators of the KJV, then this could definitively identify whether your examples are mere typographical error, or legitimate changes in the text. I do not suspect you used this as your criteria, because of the difficulty of access tot these documents; if they exist at all.
Please explain how you determined that these examples were legitimate changes in the text, or mere typographical errors. Perhaps you could write a followup article to explain your criteria. Be Well and safe! Many Thanks Douglas Zachary. Douglas, sorry for the belated reply. Your email address will not be published. Use your Gravatar -enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.
Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.
Close Menu Home. Ask Me Anything! Contact and Social Info. Comment Policy. Secular Resources. Arguments Atheists Should Not Use. Like Loading You Might Also Like…. The NJKV has substantial doctrinal changes made which render it unreliable.
Doctrinal changes based upon what? If the Bible is a lie, why would anyone go to Hell? If the Bible is true, why would anyone go to heaven? Could it be because of Jesus Christ?
Perhaps you should worship Jesus rather than the Bible. The kjv is an idol to you. You wrote: Timothy would have been using most likely a Greek translation of the Bible Old Testament at that time Jesus would have also been using a Greek translation of the Bible and still claimed they were perfect and preserved.
Then deny away, no harm no foul. Deception 2 — The NIV is easier to read and understand. Bedtime now. Tyndale died nearly a decade before the KJV was a thing. Genesis Loading They only seem to be biased to you because of your unbelief.
Yes, yes it is. I believe the only Loading You hate God because you love your sin, Repent and believe, or you too will perish. All of them. Here is my take. I respectfully wish to ask the following question: Considering Daniel only had manuscripts and no autographs of the Pentateuch, when he wrote his book then it can be concluded that at no time has any one person ever had the complete and original copy of the Word of Copy.
Therefore it would only make since that God has once inspired his Word and forever preserved it. However, every time we find God breathing in the Bible it was eternally and perfectly- He breathed upon Adam once- but yet I and you still have that same breath of life within us today.
Respectfully, Jeremy Farley Loading Hardpan Loading See his posts: Chad August 30, at am Your arguments seem nice, but the whole of the issue has been proven false by F.
May God in His wisdom guide your every step as He determines each beat of your heart. Dear friends in Christ, May the good Lord be with you and bless you and your work for Him more and more!
You can download as many copies as you want for free online and also phone apps Loading I find this interesting.
0コメント