God promised to preserve His words believers believed they have it

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
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.
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!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
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.
So would the MV when they use the Majority text renderings be superior to the Kjv then there?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
You might want to research why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts.

You are one who needs to do some sound research as you keep making misleading and factually inaccurate claims. You do not define your terms and do not apply your terms justly.

How did the reformers supposedly reject the minority texts when they accepted many minority readings in the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
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.
You fail to prove your biased opinion to be true. You do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV water down the strong renderings "tyrant," "tryants," and "tyranny" in the pre-1611 English Bibles in order to aid King James' divine-right-of-kings view?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

Conan

Active member
Lol, and that changes that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt how ?
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.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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...
FYI, an evening and morning is a day.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
FYI, an evening and morning is a day.
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".
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Lol, and that changes that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt how ?

You are uninformed and misinformed as you make claims that are not true.

The reformers did not have access to a majority of original-language manuscripts, and they had not collated them. Likely less than 50 manuscripts were incompletely and imperfectly collated by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. The textual critics who made the textually-varying Textus Receptus introduced and kept some minority readings translated into Greek by Erasmus. The varying Textus Receptus editions also contained some textual conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. The reformers had not identified any actual majority text.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
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 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.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
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.
 
Top