See here.

[westtexas]

Oops...Textus not Texas.

Darn, you busted my bubble. We always do everything bigger! I thought we went a made a bible now!
Westtexas

 

[follower of Christ]

I've never heard any of this stuff.

I've always read the KJ...not because I thought eveyone should, but because it's been my Bible for forty years. Old dog new tricks, I guess. I've never even heard of this Texas Bible.

I don't think I pay much attention to commas, but I would have noticed had my Bible said to commit adultery. :biglaugh

Anyway...thanks for all the information. I think. LOL

I wouldnt get into it, G...its not worth the effort or the aggravation.
Years ago when I was trying to understand which bible was 'Gods word' I went thru a KJV only phase and had to study all this stuff out to keep from going off the deep end.
Pick a bible or bibles and use them. Dont worry about it

 

[glorydaz]

I've never heard any of this stuff.

I've always read the KJ...not because I thought eveyone should, but because it's been my Bible for forty years. Old dog new tricks, I guess. I've never even heard of this Texas Bible.

I don't think I pay much attention to commas, but I would have noticed had my Bible said to commit adultery. :biglaugh

Anyway...thanks for all the information. I think. LOL

I wouldnt get into it, G...its not worth the effort or the aggravation.
Years ago when I was trying to understand which bible was 'Gods word' I went thru a KJV only phase and had to study all this stuff out to keep from going off the deep end.
Pick a bible or bibles and use them. Dont worry about it

That's good to hear. Guess I won't trade mine in for one of those "big" Texas ones then. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

my wife has 1960 bible that is bigger then my laptop. clunk when i put it on the table, its a kjv version.

 

[Vince]

It was good enough for the Apostle Paul, and it's good enough for me.



Several months ago, somebody posted a prank news release that they had found a King James Version in a secret locker in Noah's Ark. While there were some serous questioners, I do not know of anybody who fell for it.



However, archaeologists did find the oldest portion of Scripture on board Noah's Ark. Apparently Noah's wife had used a rolling pin to flatten out flour and water into an 8 1/2" by 11" piece of dough, etched the book of Genesis into it, and baked it. Scholars have classified it as






















The Glutenburg Bible.

 

[glorydaz]

:biglol

 

[follower of Christ]

It was good enough for the Apostle Paul, and it's good enough for me.

An old preacher once said that same thing but replaced Paul with Jesus name.
I almost choked on my soda.
Hes a KJVonlyer and a dear old man, but come on....

 

[ronniechoate34]

Errors and Corrections

In 1611, two versions of the KJV made it to press. This created a controversy that was not resolved until the Oxford Standard Edition was published in 1769. This version is the standard that most people use today. One example of the two varying 1611 versions is Ruth 3:15. One printing read, "he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he [Boaz] went into the city." The other read, "and she [Ruth] went into the city." The text allows for both and since the context is not completely clear, modern translators still are divided on which is accurate.



In 1613 over 300 variants were corrected from the original 1611 version. One printing of the KJV had one of the 10 commandments which read, “thou shalt commit adultery. This was soon labeled the “wicked Bibleâ€. In another printing, the error was made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, "the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God," and was soon called the Unrighteous Bible. In 1702 the England Puritan leader said that “scandalous errors†has affronted the Holy Bible itself.



The 1611 has undergone various revisions that intended to improve the text. For example, Matthew 16:16 in the 1611 version said, “Thou art Christ†and was revised to read, “Though art the Christâ€. Mark 5:6 said, “He came and worshiped†in 1611 but was revised to read, “he ran and worshipedâ€. As you can see, these changes are minor and do not alter the doctrine, but it does show that even the translators and publishers of the KJV recognized the need to sharpen the translation for accuracy and readability. Another example of modernizing for the reader is Psalm 23. Here is the 1611 edition of this passage:

The LORD is my shepheard, I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousness, for his names sake.

Yea, though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou annointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.

Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for euer.



It is not uncommon for people to refer to the KJV as the 1611 Authorized version, but this is not entirely accurate. It is based on the 1611 version, but it has been revised repeatedly from 1611 until 1769 when Oxford University published the Oxford Standard edition that was accepted and remains until today.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

I didn't say that they didn't use anything available to them. I said they neglected a big chunk of it because they believed it to be full of errors. The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were not used.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Pick a bible or bibles and use them. Dont worry about it

Yeah...If you read through enough of them one of them is bound to say what you want to hear.

 

[ronniechoate34]

I've never heard any of this stuff.

I've always read the KJ...not because I thought eveyone should, but because it's been my Bible for forty years. Old dog new tricks, I guess. I've never even heard of this Texas Bible.

I don't think I pay much attention to commas, but I would have noticed had my Bible said to commit adultery. :biglaugh

Anyway...thanks for all the information. I think. LOL

There is a ton of information to be found. If you decided to study this issue you'd be happy that you were convinced to read the KJ Bible and not some esoteric knock off put together in darkness by men of the occult. I was convicted that the KJ Bible was the true Word of God long before I ever lifted a finger to study the issue. I was convicted and no one ever told me to be, or why I should have been. It was simply a blessing.

 

[ronniechoate34]

i already locked up one thread from the new poster ronnie. be nice to all here.

Why did you do that? Was it because my posts was true? Was it because it may have forced some people to think? It certainly wasn't because I was spreading any disinformation.

 

[Vince]

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two oldest Greek manuscripts because they were rejected by Christians and were not worn out from use. They are both full of spelling errors and contradict each other.

However, THE oldest New Testament is the Pershitta Manuscript, which is missing or does not include the book of Revelation. It is not written in Greek, but it is the Received Text, proving that the Received Text existed before either of the two corrupt manuscripts mentioned.

 

[follower of Christ]

i already locked up one thread from the new poster ronnie. be nice to all here.

Why did you do that? Was it because my posts was true? Was it because it may have forced some people to think? It certainly wasn't because I was spreading any disinformation.

Its usually because someone is spamming by making more than ONE thread about the same topic.
Was there a NEED for TWO threads for ONE topic ?
.

 

[follower of Christ]

TheVaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two oldest Greek manuscripts because they were rejected by Christians and were not worn out from use. They are both full of spelling errors and contradict each other.

However, THE oldest New Testament is the Pershitta Manuscript, which is missing or does not include the book of Revelation. It is not written in Greek, but it is the Received Text, proving that the Received Text existed before either of the two corrupt manuscripts mentioned.

Again, we'll have to just agree to disagree as to the TR.
Some claim that the TR IS the Majority Texts...in which case your claim might work....but I dont buy that. I think its based on that family of texts to some extent. Thats as far as I go with it.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html


.

 

[follower of Christ]

I didn't say that they didn't use anything available to them. I said they neglected a big chunk of it because they believed it to be full of errors.

Funny because it SOUNDED like thats exactly what you were saying ;)

The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were not used.

Dont remember saying a thing about what was used

Is this simply a urinating contest to see who knows the most details ? If so, I'll bow out now. If you want to stick to relevance, then Im in

 

[follower of Christ]

Yeah...If you read through enough of them one of them is bound to say what you want to hear.

Yeah....I went thru this confused phase myself for a month or so. Then I decided to learn some facts :yes
Pretty much every bible version out there is just as condemning as the KJV, poster....I mean, since thats what you seem to be basing your discernment on.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

There is a ton of information to be found.

Theres also a lot of KJVonly propaganda.
God doesnt speak Ye Kings Olde Englishe, Im afraid.

If you decided to study this issue you'd be happy that you were convinced to read the KJ Bible and not some esoteric knock off put together in darkness by men of the occult.

What a hoot.
Contrary to your lack of knowledge here, there WERE english bibles prior to the KJV..and your precious translators used some of those bibles for their own translation work.
I agree that folks here should learn the truth...and when they learn it they'll find out that a group of UNINSPIRED, godly men used resources to translate yet one more english bible that has its own problems just like they all do.

Some simply prefer to idolize a translation.

I was convicted

No, you were duped just as I was by some preacher who convinced you that the KJV is more than it is.
No offense intended.

that the KJ Bible was the true Word of God long before I ever lifted a finger to study the issue.

Of course you were.
And my guess is that youve studied just what you wanted to hear after the fact instead of actually trying to understand the facts from both sides.
They got me to for a spell. I even went out and spent a decent amount of money buying that ridiculous 1611 version....the real one that is completely unreadable.
What a joke that I fell for thinking that Gods word is trapped in such a horrid bunch of words.

That all said, you DO realize that you DONT use the actual version you claim, right ?
Just like the NEWKJV is updated, your precious KJV has been updated a few times from the original until the mid 1700's. ;)

I was convicted and no one ever told me to be, or why I should have been. It was simply a blessing.

NO one ever mentioned a single word and you never read anything about the KJV or the TR, huh ?
You just one day came up with the idea that the KJV was 'Gods word' all by yourself and that all over versions with the devils work, right ....not one single thing said a word to influence you....is that what Im supposed to believe ?
Are you sticking to that story ?

 

[Vic C.]

TheVaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two oldest Greek manuscripts because they were rejected by Christians and were not worn out from use. They are both full of spelling errors and contradict each other....

LOL, the Sinaiticus is garbage, literally! It was found in the trash of St. Catherine's at the base of Mt. Sinai.

I prefer the TR over most others, so I guess you can call me King James Preferred. :D

 

[kiwimac]

Which "men of the occult" are you talking about now Ronnie?

 

[follower of Christ]

TheVaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two oldest Greek manuscripts because they were rejected by Christians and were not worn out from use. They are both full of spelling errors and contradict each other....

LOL, the Sinaiticus is garbage, literally! It was found in the trash of St. Catherine's at the base of Mt. Sinai.

I prefer the TR over most others, so I guess you can call me King James Preferred. :D

Myself, I love the KJV. I think its one of the best ones out there as far as being eloquent and poetic.
I just dont buy into this 'inspired translation' nonsense that I did shortly after being spiritually bullied by kJVonly proponents.

I mean, if I were stranded on an island and had to pick one bible to take with me it would be a KJV, most likely, but simply because I grew up with one that Ive had since 1976. Not because its the most accurate or any better than a list of other versions.
As you pointed out, the Vaticanus has some issues, and I dont trust ANY version hidden away from the church for so long, regardless of the reason. God didnt hide His word from the church. the ones out there in circulation are the ones I trust...the Byzantine type texts.