Not an exact word for word, as there are words in the Kjv not found in any TR, and others brought over from Latin Vulgate even!The added words were italicized to alert the reader they were added. So yes it is a word for word translation.
Not an exact word for word, as there are words in the Kjv not found in any TR, and others brought over from Latin Vulgate even!The added words were italicized to alert the reader they were added. So yes it is a word for word translation.
You might want to research why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts.early church used whnat has been called a Proto Alexandriab text, not on the whole the Majority one!
The Kjv team had used marginal notes, variant readings, other sources, so they did all of the things that the KJVO accuse the MV of doing wrongly!In many places, the KJV is not a literal word-for-word translation. According to the KJV translators themselves in the marginal notes, they did not provide any English rendering in their text for many original-language words of Scripture. The KJV translators also added thousands of words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture, many of which they failed to put in a different type [later editions put italics for the different type]. Later editors put many more words in italics that were not in a different type in the 1611 edition. Thus, the KJV translators had failed to alert the reader about many words that they had added.
So would the MV when they use the Majority text renderings be superior to the Kjv then there?By blindly trusting the KJV, you may be trusting as many as 1800 minority readings in the KJV. Thus you are in effect trusting the minority text in many places.
The reformers did not have access to them, as were not discovered yet!You might want to research why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts.
You might want to research why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts.
You fail to prove your biased opinion to be true. You do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.A word for word translation like the KJV did not use nor accept the high and mighty opinions of the translators they left that nonsense to the watered down and non committed future generations.
Lol, and that changes that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt how ?
They were not discovered because they were at the Vatican which is another red flag.The reformers did not have access to them, as were not discovered yet!
Only if you live in Layla land.So would the MV when they use the Majority text renderings be superior to the Kjv then there?
Wrong.The Kjv team had used marginal notes, variant readings, other sources, so they did all of the things that the KJVO accuse the MV of doing wrongly!
The claim that Eve changed God's word is pure guesswork. We don't know what God told Eve about the forbidden fruit & the tree it grew on except to not eat it. And God punished her for EATING it, not for changing His word.I guess many forget that Satan is a master at “ correcting “ God’s word. Seems I remember Eve falling for that same lie “ correcting” God’s word.
They chose the minority text in that passage. They did not reject, but accepted the minority text here. But they were honest and aware that the words in the margin were in many manuscripts so they were honest to tell bible readers the fact they are the majority text. Not minority.Lol, and that changes that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt how ?
Who said anything about Eve changing God’s word I for sure didn’t? I did say Satan called God a liar by saying she would not die if she ate off the forbidden tree.The claim that Eve changed God's word is pure guesswork. We don't know what God told Eve about the forbidden fruit & the tree it grew on except to not eat it. And God punished her for EATING it, not for changing His word.
FYI, an evening and morning is a day.And the translators of the KJV destroyed God’s word by changing ( 'evenings and mornings' to 'days').
But I guess impugning modern-day translators (a. k. a. "bearing false witness") is perfectly acceptable in your world...
Ho-hum. The point YOU made was that the KJV is a word-for-word translation. I merely pointed out a place where it is NOT word-for-word. No matter how you try, the KJV is NOT word-for-word. In fact, the KJV translators did something you condemn in modern versions. That, sir, is called "hypocrisy".FYI, an evening and morning is a day.
Lol, and that changes that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt how ?
I agree.Who said anything about Eve changing God’s word I for sure didn’t? I did say Satan called God a liar by saying she would not die if she ate off the forbidden tree.
I have been KJV since 1978 and you are the first person I have heard say those who stay with the KJV says “ they “ say Eve changed God’s word. Who exactly are they ? I don’t know any of the “they” you refer to.I agree.
But it's a well-known and false KJVO thingie when they say Eve changed God's word by adding they weren't even to touch the forbidden fruit. God didn't even mention that when He decreed A&E's punishment.