Bible Version Chart

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bible Version Chart

    Click image for larger version

Name:	gplus-1512777896.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	59.4 KB
ID:	41146

  • #2
    Originally posted by Calvarystudy View Post
    Click image for larger version  Name:	gplus-1512777896.jpg Views:	1 Size:	59.4 KB ID:	41146
    Here are some articles detailing what might be considered minor errors:
    Defects of the King James Version
    Unwarranted Verbal Differences and Agreements in the English Version

    And a couple with praise:
    The Authorized Version (1611)
    Albert Barnes on the King James Version

    God bless,
    William
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by William View Post

      Here are some articles detailing what might be considered minor errors:
      Defects of the King James Version
      Unwarranted Verbal Differences and Agreements in the English Version

      And a couple with praise:
      The Authorized Version (1611)
      Albert Barnes on the King James Version

      God bless,
      William

      Wow, we could exchange weblinks all day long and still get nowhere.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Calvarystudy View Post
        Wow, we could exchange weblinks all day long and still get nowhere.
        You did notice that he presented two links with criticisms of the KJV and two links in support of the KJV didn't you?
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by atpollard View Post
          You did notice that he presented two links with criticisms of the KJV and two links in support of the KJV didn't you?
          It is hard to see clearly when one is so willfully blind. It also betrays the fact that he would never ever really try and understand the topic.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by William View Post
            Here are some articles detailing what might be considered minor errors:Defects of the King James Version
            I skimmed through this article, and frankly those are NOT defects in the KJV. Just because the writer prefers to have a different way of bringing out the translation does not justify calling this Bible defective. Most of the anti-KJV propaganda is just that -- mere propaganda. If this translation were indeed defective it is hardly possible that it would have been THE English Bible for over 300 years. Before the modern translations came on the scene, any reference to the Bible was a reference to the Authorized Version


            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Lucas View Post
              I skimmed through this article, and frankly those are NOT defects in the KJV. Just because the writer prefers to have a different way of bringing out the translation does not justify calling this Bible defective. Most of the anti-KJV propaganda is just that -- mere propaganda. If this translation were indeed defective it is hardly possible that it would have been THE English Bible for over 300 years. Before the modern translations came on the scene, any reference to the Bible was a reference to the Authorized Version.
              Here is one from the text:

              "He who reads the Gospel of St. Mark in Greek gets a vivid idea of the promptitude, the tendency to strike while the iron is hot, which cunning and malice may engender. A princess enters the banqueting room of a king, enchants him by the grace of her dancing, and evokes from his tipsy rashness the promise, 'Ask what thou wilt and I will give it thee, even to the half of my kingdom.' (St. Mark vi., 22.) The damsel, after consulting with her mother, returns to the banqueting room, points, no doubt, to the dishes on the banqueting table, and says, 'Give me forthwith, on a dish, the head of John the Baptist.' In the English Bible the speech runs, 'Give me by and by, in a charger.' 'By and by' means, in our century, a time somewhat distant from the present; the phrase has ceased to mean 'forthwith.' A charger, in modern English, signifies a war horse; the word has ceased to signify a dish or platter from which plates are charged or supplied.
              Does "Give me by and by, in a charger ..." really convey the same meaning as "Give me forthwith, on a dish ..."? The author does not claim this is something for which we should burn the KJV, but it does suggest that after 300 years, an update to some phrases may be needed to regain the original meaning where our language has changed. That hardly seems like 'propaganda'.

              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                It is hard to see clearly when one is so willfully blind. It also betrays the fact that he would never ever really try and understand the topic.
                Wow. judging much?

                What a shame i cannot block you.

                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                  I skimmed through this article, and frankly those are NOT defects in the KJV. Just because the writer prefers to have a different way of bringing out the translation does not justify calling this Bible defective. Most of the anti-KJV propaganda is just that -- mere propaganda. If this translation were indeed defective it is hardly possible that it would have been THE English Bible for over 300 years. Before the modern translations came on the scene, any reference to the Bible was a reference to the Authorized Version


                  Amen!

                  Have you noticed with these anti-KJVists that they dont just DISLIKE the KJV.

                  The HATE it.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Calvarystudy View Post
                    Wow. judging much?
                    That is quite funny coming from you.

                    Originally posted by Calvarystudy View Post
                    What a shame i cannot block you.
                    I know.

                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by atpollard View Post
                      Here is one from the text:
                      Does "Give me by and by, in a charger ..." really convey the same meaning as "Give me forthwith, on a dish ..."? The author does not claim this is something for which we should burn the KJV, but it does suggest that after 300 years, an update to some phrases may be needed to regain the original meaning where our language has changed. That hardly seems like 'propaganda'.
                      Well if we want to get right down to cases, "Give me immediately on a platter.." would be more in keeping with the actual Greek words.

                      My point is that this author unjustly and with malice aforethought titled his article as "DEFECTS of the King James Version". For the 17th century those were definitely not defects, and for us, all we have to do is consult Strong's Concordance for clarification. Had he said something to the effect that there were archaisms in the KJV, that would certainly be fair.

                      And James White takes the same pejorative approach to the KJV because he is a disciple of Westcott & Hort. As Dean Burgon quoted from Scripture "Little children, keep yourselves from idols". Had W&H not created idols out of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, we could have had a proper English revision which removed the archaisms but preserved the integrity of the Bible.

                      Strong's Concordance
                      exautés: at once, forthwith
                      Original Word: ἐξαυτῆς
                      Part of Speech: Adverb
                      Transliteration: exautés
                      Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ow'-tace)
                      Short Definition: immediately, instantly
                      Definition: immediately, instantly, at once.

                      Strong's Concordance
                      pinax: a board, dish
                      Original Word: πίναξ, ακος, ἡ
                      Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
                      Transliteration: pinax
                      Phonetic Spelling: (pin'-ax)
                      Short Definition: a plate, platter
                      Definition: a plate, platter, disc, dish.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                        And James White takes the same pejorative approach to the KJV because he is a disciple of Westcott & Hort.
                        No modern textual scholar follow Westcott & Hort. It is silly to even suggest such a thing. Their theories are well over 125 years old.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Origen View Post
                          No modern textual scholar follow Westcott & Hort. It is silly to even suggest such a thing. Their theories are well over 125 years old.
                          Well those textual scholars who have produced the "critical texts" clearly follow Westcott & Hort. Let's take an example (1 Tim 3:16):

                          CRITICAL TEXTS

                          Westcott and Hort 1881
                          καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

                          Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
                          καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

                          Tischendorf 8th Edition
                          καί ὁμολογουμένως μέγας εἰμί ὁ ὁ εὐσέβεια μυστήριον ὅς φανερόω ἐν σάρξ δικαιόω ἐν πνεῦμα ὁράω ἄγγελος κηρύσσω ἐν ἔθνος πιστεύω ἐν κόσμος ἀναλαμβάνω ἐν δόξα

                          English Revised Version
                          And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.


                          RECEIVED TEXTS

                          RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
                          Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

                          Greek Orthodox Church 1904
                          καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

                          Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
                          καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

                          Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
                          καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ

                          King James Bible
                          And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

                          Dean Burgon wrote a lengthy dissertation on this verse in his book The Revision Revised.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                            Well those textual scholars who have produced the "critical texts" clearly follow Westcott & Hort. Let's take an example (1 Tim 3:16):
                            The only thing you have shown is that they are different from the so-called TR. You have assumed because they agree those texts are following W&H but they are not. They are following the textual evidence. Can you cite the evidence and explain why that choice was made? Hint, it has nothing to do with Westcott & Hort.

                            Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                            Dean Burgon wrote a lengthy dissertation on this verse in his book The Revision Revised.
                            Burgon is just as out of date as Westcott & Hort.
                            Last edited by Origen; 06-19-2017, 07:54 PM.
                            Comment>
                            Working...
                            X
                            Articles - News - SiteMap