|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:44 am
|
|
|
|
I Skorp I Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter? I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though?
As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture.
If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic? _
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0 _
It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny.
If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Micah Seven Eighteen I Skorp I Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter? I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though? As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture. If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic? _ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0_ It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny. If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once.
Nice! Thanks alot fellow brethren i'll def check it out smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:06 am
|
|
|
|
I Skorp I Micah Seven Eighteen I Skorp I Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter? I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though? As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture. If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic? _ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0_ It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny. If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once. Nice! Thanks alot fellow brethren i'll def check it out smile You are very welcome. I hope what we've given to you is useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:10 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|