Changes in the King James Version

e v e 21

Well-known member
*bump* for e v e 21

Please respond to my request for you to provide actual substantiation for your assertion in Post #8.
… look at the illustrations James approved in the first edition …. could he not know what the symbols were, having previously written his demonology manual?

of course you should do your own
research on this and decide for yourself. I have chronic fatigue and can’t do more.


google images:
masonic illustrations king james


 
Last edited:

kiwimacnz

Member
… look at the illustrations James approved in the first edition …. could he not know what the symbols were, having previously written his demonology manual?

of course you should do your own
research on this and decide for yourself. I have chronic fatigue and can’t do more.


google images:
masonic illustrations king james


Twaddle!
 

imJRR

Well-known member
… look at the illustrations James approved in the first edition …. could he not know what the symbols were, having previously written his demonology manual?

of course you should do your own
research on this and decide for yourself. I have chronic fatigue and can’t do more.


google images:
masonic illustrations king james



???

e v e - I'm not trying to be a nag here, but I would really appreciate it if you would honor my request to provide...
1) an explanation of what you mean by what you said in your post #8; and
2) actual substantiation for your allegation.

The reason for my request is that I honestly do not know why you said what you said; and your allegation is significant enough that it really should be substantiated.
And - it being your allegation - there is a responsibility on your part to provide some real evidence for making it.

Surely a person who has close to 400 posts can provide something.
 

OldWalt

Member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.
Which TR are you talking about?
 

David1701

Well-known member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.
The various TRs are very similar to each other, but not identical; however, and this is important, the differences are very few and very minor, compared with the differences between any TR and any Nestle text. The TR is also much more in agreement with the majority of Greek manuscripts (although not entirely) than the Nestle versions.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.
Yep, it only took the KJV to be stop changing.
 

OldWalt

Member
The various TRs are very similar to each other, but not identical; however, and this is important, the differences are very few and very minor, compared with the differences between any TR and any Nestle text. The TR is also much more in agreement with the majority of Greek manuscripts (although not entirely) than the Nestle versions.
TR aka received text? Just a question>
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.

Well, there are two significant problems with your claim and your argument.

1) Just because something is "fixed", doesn't mean it's true. The Roman Catholic church makes the same claim of itself, and I'm guessing you might reject their argument in their application of it.

2) I don't have a copy of NA25th, but judging from the INCREDIBLE ms. support for the inclusion of Luke 24:12, I find it very hard to believe that that particular edition omitted it.

Where did you get your information from? Do you have a copy of the page of Luke 24 where you can confirm your claim? Can anyone else confirm the omission of Luke 24:12 from NA25th?



But your overall assumption that "change" means "bad", is faulty. The entire reason that the NA/UBS text changes over time ("tweaked", really) is because over time we get more and more information in the form of more manuscripts, and often earlier manuscripts. And so we have more information by which to make a more informed conclusion.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
This is omitted in Nestles 25th. How can you defend something that is ever changing? Us kjv guys have a fixed received text.

The fact that you didn't know that "TR" refers to "Textus Receptus" doesn't really give me much confidence in your opinions on this topic.
 

OldWalt

Member
Well, there are two significant problems with your claim and your argument.

1) Just because something is "fixed", doesn't mean it's true. The Roman Catholic church makes the same claim of itself, and I'm guessing you might reject their argument in their application of it.

2) I don't have a copy of NA25th, but judging from the INCREDIBLE ms. support for the inclusion of Luke 24:12, I find it very hard to believe that that particular edition omitted it.

Where did you get your information from? Do you have a copy of the page of Luke 24 where you can confirm your claim? Can anyone else confirm the omission of Luke 24:12 from NA25th?



But your overall assumption that "change" means "bad", is faulty. The entire reason that the NA/UBS text changes over time ("tweaked", really) is because over time we get more and more information in the form of more manuscripts, and often earlier manuscripts. And so we have more information by which to make a more informed conclusion.
Well you have been studying Greek for 50 years so you say. You were around in about 63 right? Anyways, its documented. No matter how hard it is , it documented.
And as far as your assertion that I believe "change is bad", is baseless. You also asserted that Im out of my league. Quit doing that.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Well you have been studying Greek for 50 years so you say. You were around in about 63 right? Anyways, its documented. No matter how hard it is , it documented.
And as far as your assertion that I believe "change is bad", is baseless. You also asserted that Im out of my league. Quit doing that.
We notice you did not get into specifics about what I’d documented. Methinks that is on purpose.
 
Top