Search this Topic:
Jun 9 17 4:02 AM
amarillo wrote:Euthymius wrote:BR: WHO sir, (in your estimation) is the "believing reader" to understand was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, according to "the varieties of English Bible translations"?Easy: רביעיא דמה לבר־אלהין (amazing -- the "variety of English translations" don't override or confuse the original at all).
Euthymius wrote:BR: WHO sir, (in your estimation) is the "believing reader" to understand was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, according to "the varieties of English Bible translations"?Easy: רביעיא דמה לבר־אלהין (amazing -- the "variety of English translations" don't override or confuse the original at all).
"according to "the varieties of English Bible translations"?"
So, they all agree on this do they? What a nut.
Jun 9 17 4:10 AM
Brandy, you are missing it altogether. I am so sorry, you can't even see it.
The posted answer of yours is what I was referring to when stating the Doc was correct. You are the one that doesn't have a Bible anymore. Go read your own answer again. Talk about "straw men" all you want, I never mentioned PCC, but the point if you can still discern it, is that they USE it to attract students, they don't BELIEVE it. As you must now know, when you get THERE, you don't have the scriptures.
Jun 9 17 4:14 AM
Jun 9 17 2:20 PM
Jun 12 17 5:43 AM
Brandy:"Ruckman said that Fundamentalists claim they have no Bible. I don't claim that!
Well, you refuse to name the Bible, so where is it?
Brandy:"However, you're saying that if I do not subscribe to your exact position then I do not have a Bible."
You are more and more frequently stating what I am saying, when I have said no such thing, what is it you call that?
Brandy:"Is that why Ruckman's school was much larger than PCC? Oh, wait! It was VERY small."
Now there, you've gone & divulged the realm you are working in. By your reasoning, Notre Dame & UC San Francisco are more doctrinally correct & spiritual than PCC, correct? LOL!!!
But to turn that back around, English Bible total sales of the KJV versus the version YOU name,,,,,oh, I forgot, you can't name one!
Brandy:"Let me get this straight. Ruckman said that Fundamentalists claim they have no Bible. I don't claim that! I do not know anyone who does. "
Doug Kutilek & you sure sound a lot alike Brandy, especially when talking about an English Bible. You both love to go back to Greek & Hebrew & show everyone how smart you must be to have God's words. I shall repost here for your convenience a typical exchange with a "fundamentalist" who "has no Bible" since it's the proof you request (Best to read the email string below from the bottom up, for full effect):
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:38 PM
To: Hays, Mark
Subject: Re: Not HOW, WHAT
As I suspected--a quibbler, not a person in serious search for answers.
I'll waste no more time on you.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:23:15 -0600 "Hays, Mark"< [email protected]>
> Mr. Kutilek,
> Pardon me for using such rural colloquialisms, but you sir, "sure are
> going the long way around" this issue. Your page said that you were
> defending a book, the Bible. I asked you which Book it was, so I could
> get one. Now here you are, three emails and multiple pages of
> pre-prepared attachments later, referring me to books I already have!
> Please, if you are so bold in the defense of the Book, and that Book
> is NA 27, why sir, in the world, would you not just come out and say
> Why all the mystery? Surely a straight answer is not that hard to
> find, even today!
> I ask the question one more time, just to be perfectly, and absolutely
> clear. Is that (NA 27) the Book you are defending?
> We are still on my original question, and I quote:
> >"This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as
> written, "
> > >
> > > Please tell me where I may obtain a copy of that Bible."
> P.S. Will a Jacob Ben Chayyim do for the OT, or must it be a
> If I were to want a Bible to be one book, would "Biblia Sacra
> Utriusque Testamenti Editio Hebraica et Graeca (with Novum Testamentum
> Graece)", fill the bill, so to speak? I really prefer my Bible to be
> one book.
> Please sir," but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay;"(Jas 5:12) Is
> that the Book you are defending as the "Bible as originally written"?
> Yes or no?
> IF you are really defending a Bible as originally written, a Yes or No
> answer should not be this hard, SHOULD IT?
> Mark J. Hays
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 1:44 PM
> To: Hays, Mark
> Subject: Re: Not HOW, WHAT
> Mr. Hays--
> Okay, get the 27th edition of the Greek NT and for the Hebrew OT
> Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (contact the American Bible Society for
> After having examined these, then you can show me where you think they
> are NOT the original language text of the NT.
> Doug Kutilek
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:31:20 -0600 "Hays, Mark" <[email protected]>
> > Mr. Kutilek,
> > The question I posed was not intended to offend or irritate you,
> > to
> > clarify the mission statement, so-to-speak, on your web page.
> > website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally
> > written, ".
> > Now sir, if this Bible is a book. I want a copy. I only asked
> > this
> > could be obtained. Since you refused to answer the question at
> > I
> > can only submit that you must be the one that is a "partisan
> > interested in quibbling and disputing", or rather, pretending to
> > the
> > one trying to settle such quibbles & disputes.
> > I only asked, and will again, where may I obtain a copy of the
> > that
> > you are dedicated to the defense of?
> > If I could get a copy, and read it, I would most probably be in
> > defense of it too!
> > To respond to your points individually:
> > 1.You say " First, the Bible as originally written does still
> > exist."
> > Great!
> > ALL I want to know, is, WHERE? How much money do I need to bring,
> > buy
> > a copy?
> > That is ALL I want to know. The rest of your suppositions do not
> > answer any questions, only raise more, which I'll refrain from
> > asking,
> > both
> > our expedience.
> > 2.You ask " Second, if you are concerned about "variant readings"
> > among
> > printed Greek texts....". No, I am not. I want you to please tell
> > me
> > where to get this Bible you are defending. May I come have a look
> > at
> > YOURS?
> > 3.You also ask, "Third, can you read Greek and Hebrew (and
> > Aramaic)?"
> > Yes, since 1993. I must confess though, that as with any foreign
> > tongue, I must refer to grammars & such to be sure of what I am
> > reading when there is doubt. I am not sure what this has to do with
> > my one simple question though. Would you please connect that dot for
> > me?
> > Regards,
> > Mark Hays
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:54 PM
> > To: Hays, Mark
> > Subject: Re: How to defend?
> > Mr. Hays--
> > Commonly, those who ask this question are not interested in
> > information but are KJV partisans merely interested in quibbling and
> > will assume that you are not one of those, and will address your
> > question.
> > First, the Bible as originally written does still exist. The
> > page
> > of the original KJV says: "Translated out of the original tongues"
> > and
> > the 10-page "Translators to the Readers" in the original KJV
> > repeatedly talks about their work of translating directly out of the
> > Hebrew and Greek. Do you suppose that their claim to having the
> > Bible as originally written is false, and they were liars--or
> > deceived?
> > Second, if you are concerned about "variant readings" among
> > Greek texts, let me direct you attention to the attached papers.
> > These
> > should answer any honest questions you may have.
> > Third, can you read Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic)? The Bible
> > originally written in these languages, and having a Greek NT or
> > Hebrew OT would be of small use to you unless you learn these
> > languages,
> > which
> > I would urge you to do.
> > Doug Kutilek
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:57:45 -0600 "Hays, Mark"
> <[email protected]>
> > writes:
> > > [email protected]
> > > name=Mark
> > > priority=Normal
> > > subject=How to defend?
> > > message="This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible
> > > originally written, "
> > > Please tell me where I may obtain a copy of that Bible.
Jun 13 17 6:12 AM
SAWBONES wrote:brandpluckt wrote:Why does it need to be ONE book? ==========================================================Why indeed?Those KJVOs who, in their spiritual and emotional insecurity, insist that there must be (and therefore necessarily is) a single perfect collection of Scriptural books in the form of the KJV of the Bible, obviously value a feeling of certainty above any honest & sincere desire for knowable truth. Even the most cursory and superficial review of Church history and Biblical textual criticism demonstrates how ludicrous the idea of KJVOism (or any other "one perfect Bible translation only-ism") is. The truth of the Scriptures, and the Scripturally-obedient life of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ quite obviously do not depend upon nor require the existence of such a thing as a single absolutely perfect letter-and-punctuation-mark-exact English translation of the Bible, nor is the pretended existence of such a thing by KJVOs, in the form of the KJV, even a clear genuine benefit to anyone, including the KJVOs themselves, who are typically divisive, quarrelsome and generally unpleasant to other believers. I understand that KJVOism is a proper sub-forum at BVDB, but I must say it's really a boring concept.I'm thankful for the varieties of English Bible translations, and while some have (in my estimation) more precision and value than others, almost none are without some benefit to the believing reader.
brandpluckt wrote:Why does it need to be ONE book?
Jun 13 17 4:16 PM
Jun 13 17 4:50 PM
Jun 14 17 7:44 AM
Sawbones:" "What" I say vs. "how" I say? Please clarify,"
Sir, you sound so reasonable until your general statements are actually examined in light of the Scriptures, that is all.
Sawbones:"My definition of "the Bible" is the same as that of most Protestant believers, that is, the 66 books of the combined Old and New Testaments,"
So then, Doc. would YOUR version of "the Bible" contain the Comma? the last 12 verses of Mark? would it be a translation of ALL of the books contained in the fave MSS of modern TC, Siniaticus & B, or would it pick N choose from the text? Who would be in the furnace with the three Hebrew children?
You see sir you are describing ONE Book yourself, in answer to the question "Why indeed?", where by asking it, appears that you are justifying a view that the Bible is in fact a collection of writings found literally "all over the place"! A sort of Universalist or Evolutionist view of the Bible itself.
Sawbones:"My personal concern is with the plain meaning of the Scriptures, which in most versions and most verses is sufficiently clear that believers have no difficulty knowing how they are to walk."
That is ONE aspect or attribute, of the Scriptures only. For them to be "Holy", the must of necessity and by definition, be TRUE. In order to "know how they are to walk" they must be truth.
John 17:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
What you call a "felt need" is simply the exposure of error in the multitude of modern versions.
2 Corinthians 2:17King James Version (KJV)
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
The "felt need" is to fulfill the charge:" Romans 16:17King James Version (KJV)
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
God doesn't want you to have "most versions and most verses ", "sufficiently clear", He wants us to live " by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jn 4:4
Jun 14 17 10:31 AM
Jun 14 17 12:51 PM
Jun 14 17 1:38 PM
Jun 14 17 9:34 PM
mko wrote:The Vulgate's rendering of 1 Samuel 13.1 was "Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare coepisset: duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel", literally "The son of one year was Saul when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel" - which I believe is probably an accurate literal translation of the Masoretic Hebrew. It's obviously a mutilated reading. (The Septuagint lacks the verse entirely.)
The reason why the LXX omitted it is because the text was corrupted.
My rendering is based on the Dutch Statenvertaling and the "since" of the LITV and KJ3.
Saul was een jaar in zijn regering geweest, en het tweede jaar regeerde hij over Israel.(DSV) (Saul was been a year in his reign, and the second year reigned he over Israel.)
NOT "en hij regeerde twee jaar over Israel" (and he reigned two years over Israel.)
1Sa 13:1 It was a year since Saul began to reign and he had reigned in the second year over Israel, (RHB6).
Jun 15 17 4:14 AM
Euthy:"So since the KJV has words that did not "proceed out of the mouth of God" (e.g. the Johannine Comma or incorrect paraphrases and translations such as "God forbid" or "God save the king") "
Now we're back to the real issue, your opinion.
Jun 15 17 4:58 AM
SAWBONES wrote:I don't believe that the preponderance of evidence supports the genuineness of the Johannine Comma as Scripture.
I accept the last twelve verses of Mark as canonical, without necessarily believing that they were written by Mark, or at the same time as the rest of the Gospel.
As to uncertain or disputed textual variants (there are quite a few, but none that I can bring to mind that are of particular doctrinal significance), and corrupted manuscript sections (1 Sam. 13:1 will suffice as an example), I neither bewail the unavoidable uncertainties nor insist on making textual emendations or "guesses", and then pretending that such definitely represent the original text.
I much prefer a little honest uncertainty to any sort of pretended absolute certainty.
There is quite enough certainty about the identity of the Scriptures to provide more than sufficient light by which to walk.
Sawbones:"I don't believe"..."I accept "....."I much prefer"
Speaking of "honest uncertainty" and "sufficient light", are you absolutely certain that the "original text" is the one God wants you to have?
An open minded study of Jeremiah 36 might be in order. Sawbones:" I much prefer a little honest uncertainty to any sort of pretended absolute certainty.
1Pet 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We have a more sure word than God's voice from heaven, and to reject that, is to reject the above scriptures.
You seem to be "absolutely certain" of corruption, ( "and corrupted manuscript sections (1 Sam. 13:1 will suffice as an example), " when there is no evidence given other than your lack of understanding. Here is a copy/paste from the KJVToday site for your "honest" consideration:
"There are two ways to resolve the textual problem at 1 Samuel 13:1. One way is to suppose a copyist error. The other is to suppose an irregular use of the phrase. Only one approach is biblical. God has promised to preserve his word but he has not promised to use idioms consistently throughout the Bible. Therefore, a copyist error is impossible whereas an irregular use of the phrase is probable, no matter how improbable. As Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr. eloquently said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Even if the interpretation suggested in this article and adopted by the KJV translators might appear improbable for those critics who insist on the universal use of the regnal formula, the said interpretation is more probable than the impossible." http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/one-year-or-missing-number-in-1-samuel-131
Sawbones:"As to uncertain or disputed textual variants (there are quite a few, but none that I can bring to mind that are of particular doctrinal significance), "
Here's a short list for you to start with. Not all of these are in every modern "version", but these are common English "textual variants ". We are talking about English Bibles, right? I mean, now that we've gotten past that nonexistent "original text".
I would certainly hope that you could locate some "doctrinal significance" in the above.
Jun 15 17 8:04 AM
Barry Ruckilow wrote:You seem to be "absolutely certain" of corruption, ( "and corrupted manuscript sections (1 Sam. 13:1 will suffice as an example), " when there is no evidence given other than your lack of understanding. Here is a copy/paste from the KJVToday site for your "honest" consideration:"There are two ways to resolve the textual problem at 1 Samuel 13:1. One way is to suppose a copyist error. The other is to suppose an irregular use of the phrase. Only one approach is biblical. God has promised to preserve his word but he has not promised to use idioms consistently throughout the Bible. Therefore, a copyist error is impossible whereas an irregular use of the phrase is probable, no matter how improbable. As Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr. eloquently said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Even if the interpretation suggested in this article and adopted by the KJV translators might appear improbable for those critics who insist on the universal use of the regnal formula, the said interpretation is more probable than the impossible." http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/one-year-or-missing-number-in-1-samuel-131Sawbones:"As to uncertain or disputed textual variants (there are quite a few, but none that I can bring to mind that are of particular doctrinal significance), "Here's a short list for you to start with. Not all of these are in every modern "version", but these are common English "textual variants ". We are talking about English Bibles, right? I mean, now that we've gotten past that nonexistent "original text".
From 1 to 15 (those that I disagree).
From the KJV notes of 1611 (updated spelling)
Pro 25:23 The North wind driveth away rain, so doeth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue:
Or, The North wind bringeth forth rain, so doeth a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance
For Pro 18:24 prove that the KJV is correct because the first meaning of H7489 is spoil OR breaking in pierces.
In Dan. 3:25 is the person an Angel see KJV Dan 3:28 ... "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel".
Now the bad news for the KJV-only that falsely claims "there are no copyist errors in the Hebrew text" while the most translations follow the copyist errors in 2 Sa 21:19
However the KJV translators have left two copyist errors that are NOT corrected in the same verse. Note that the brother of is in italics because it is a correction of the source text.
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (KJV)
1Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. (KJV)
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jair, slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam. 1Ch 20:5 . (RHB6)
1Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam. 2Sa 21:19 . (RHB6)
Adam Clarke commentary: 2Sa 21:19
Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.
Albert Barnes commentary: 2Sa 21:19
The Hebrew text is manifestly very corrupt. First, for “Jaare-oregim,” 1Ch_20:5 gives us the reading Jair. “Oregim” has evidently got in by a transcriber’s error from the line below, where “oregim” is the Hebrew for “weavers.” Again, the word the “Bethlehemite” is very doubtful. It is supported by 2Sa_23:24, but it is not found in the far purer text of 1Ch_20:5, but instead of it we find the name of the Philistine slain by Elhanan, “Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” It is probable, therefore, that either the words “the Bethlehemite,” are a corruption of “Lahmi,” or that the recurrence of “Lahmi,” and the termination of “Beth-lehemite” has confused the transcriber, and led to the omission of one of the words in each text.
The point is that the KJV is wrong just as any other translation or soucre that not correct the three errors in 2Sa 21:19 .
In reality reject the KJV-only movement all the Hebrew sources that are disagree with the KJV.
How can you claim that there are NO copyist errors and the same time correcting a part of the copyist errors in 2Sa 21:19?
Jun 15 17 9:39 AM
from 15 to 100
Changes "hell" to "Hades"
The English word for the abode for those who die without trusting Christ is "hell, not "Hades".
Hades is a transliteration of G86 do you claim that the Greek Originals are wrong?
1 John 5:7-8
Omits part of both verses
Attacks the Bible Doctrine of the Trinity.
Forced to add in the 3th edition of Erasmus.
2 Peter 1:21
Omits the word "holy"
Attacks the inspiration of the scripture as coming through "holy men".
Holy men are called Saints. Lookup to the word Saint.
Changes "strait" to "difficult"
Attacks salvation by grace through faith and makes salvation by works.
G4728 means "narrow" and you need still to obey God.
2 Tim. 2:15
Changes "study" to "do your utmost" or "be diligent" or "work hard"
Changes meaning of verse and attacks salvation by grace through faith and makes salvation by works.
That is 5 against 1 for the KJV
Total KJV Occurrences: 12
1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 Cor. 2:15
Changes "are saved" to "are being saved"
are being saved
σωζομενοις｜σώζω｜to saveG4982Part of Speech: VerbTense: PresentVoice: PassiveMood: ParticipleCase: Dative (indirect object, "to"; also location "in", "at"; instrument, "with")Number: PluralGender: Masculine
Changes "believeth" to "obey"
It means both!
Total KJV Occurrences: 16
Act_17:5, Act_19:9, Rom_11:30-31 (2), Heb_3:18, Heb_11:31
Rom_10:21, 1Pe_2:7-8 (2), 1Pe_3:20
Rom_2:8, 1Pe_3:1, 1Pe_4:17
Omits entire verse
Attacks salvation by grace through faith and makes salvation by works (water baptism).
And it was Calvin who killed the Ana-Baptists because his works were evil and they were faithfull?
Later were the Calvinists ashamed of this evil behaviour and called themselves Reformed Baptists.
No Reformation Bible omits this verse as witness agaist all the killers of Baptists.
Changes "me" which refers to "the LORD" (Jehovah) in Zech 12:1 (cf. John 19:37) to "the One"
Attacks the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. (KJV)
"the One" is "on Him"
ὅς, ἥ, ὅ
hos hë ho
hos, hay, ho
Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757.
Changes the commandment to "Search the scriputures" to "You are searching the scriptures"
Changes meaning of the verse.
Part of Speech: Verb
Person: second [you+]
Changes "my" to "the"
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are One. (RHB6)
οG3588 T-NSM is an article.
Joh 10:30 εγωG1473 P-1NS καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM πατηρG3962 N-NSM ενG1520 A-NSN εσμενG2070 V-PXI-1P
Changes "Jesus" to "Joshua"
The correct translation is "Jesus" as in the KJV. Joshua 1-10 is a type of Jesus Christ and a picture of the 2nd Advent. (cf. Josh. 5:15) The same Greek word for Jesus (Iesous) is also used throughout the rest of the NT.
Jesus is the same name as Joshua in Hebrew,Greek, Aramaic and Latin. And it is not the only place in the NT see Heb 4:8 about the OT Jesus(Joshua) and Bar-Jesus in Act 13:6.
(bar is Aramaic for son).
Jun 15 17 9:51 AM
Jun 15 17 10:54 AM
From 101 to the 139
Changes "changed" to "exchanged"
From G3326 and G236; to exchange - change.
Changes "have pleasure" to "consent"
Total KJV Occurrences: 6
Changes "the Lord Jesus" to "Jesus is Lord"
Supports "Lordship Salvation", (the false doctrine that if Jesus is not Lord over all your life at salvation, then He is not Lord at all and you were never saved.)
Not about the verse but a fake difinition of "Lordship Salvation" from a fake believer.
Changes "Easter" to "passover"
The KJV's "Easter" is the correct translation.
Judaism celbrates Easter to please Herod?
Or is it a Catholic trick to celebrate Easter instead of Passover by using it as the same word in many languages?
Easter-lamb is in reality Passover-lamb.
By the way; Passover starts on the 14 Nissan/Abib and end on the 21 Nissan/Abib as last day.
I wonder how less commentators agree with the KJV-only movement in this verse?
1 Tim. 6:20
Changes "science" to "knowledge"
The new versions take away the KJV's warning against the false science.
Science and knowledge are the same thing. And it is rather the KJV who changed knowledge to science in this verse.
Total KJV Occurrences: 29
Luk_1:77, Luk_11:52, Rom_2:20, Rom_11:33, Rom_15:14, 1Co_1:5, 1Co_8:1 (2), 1Co_8:7, 1Co_8:10-11 (2), 1Co_12:8, 1Co_13:2, 1Co_13:8, 1Co_14:6, 2Co_2:14, 2Co_8:6-7 (3), 2Co_11:5-6 (2), Eph_3:19, Php_3:8, Col_2:3, 1Pe_3:7, 2Pe_1:5-6 (2), 2Pe_3:18
Changes "spider" to "lizard"
gecko is the correct translation of H8079
Spider - Rather, the Gecko (or Stellio), a genus of the lizard tribe, many species of which haunt houses, make their way through crevices in the walls, and with feet that secrete a venomous exudation catch the spiders or the flies they find there.
Changes "cormorant and the bittern" to "pelican and the hedgehog (or owl)"
Changes meaning of the verse. A bittern is a bird similar to a heron.
H6893 means pilican
Total KJV Occurrences: 5
Lev_11:18, Deu_14:17, Psa_102:6
Changes "Manasseh" to "Moses"
The KJV corrects the Hebrew Masoretic text
It is rather from the Vulgate.
In the Hebrew text the name here rendered Manasseh is written MN)- SH. Without the “N” (nun) suspended over the line, the word may be read: Moses, whose son was Gershom Exo_2:22, whose son or descendant Jonathan clearly was. The Masoretes, probably grieved that a descendant of Moses should have been implicated in idolatrous worship, adopted this expedient for disguising the fact without absolutely falsifying the text. The Vulgate has “Moses”, the Septuagint “Manasses”.
Daniel 1:4 and 1 Tim. 6:20
Omits the word "science"
The word "science" is removed from the new bibles so readers will not connect the modern "god" of science with Babylon which represents the present evil world under the dominion of Satan.
see number 126
See twelve references in the right-hand column.
Changes "testament" to "covenant"
The new bibles incorporate this error twelve times: Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 7:22; 9:15 (twice),18, 20; Rev. 11:19. A testament is in force only after the death of the testator; a covenant does not require the death of anybody to be in force, i.e. using the word "covenant" in the new bibles has eliminated the shed blood and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Covenant and Testament is the same word in Greek.
And you deny the "New Covenant".
Total KJV Occurrences: 33
Luk_1:72, Act_3:25, Act_7:8, Rom_11:27, Gal_3:15, Gal_3:17, Heb_8:6, Heb_8:8-10 (4), Heb_9:4 (2), Heb_10:16, Heb_10:29, Heb_12:24, Heb_13:20
Mat_26:28, Mar_14:24, Luk_22:20, 1Co_11:25, 2Co_3:6, 2Co_3:14, Heb_7:22, Heb_9:15-17 (4), Heb_9:20, Rev_11:19
Rom_9:4, Gal_4:24, Eph_2:12
Jun 15 17 2:11 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.