It is small wonder so many liberal Christians are confused. Each one of those passages from the various "versions" says a different thing. How is one to determine what is truth? There can be only one truth. If one "version" is truth then the others are false.

I am so, so incredibly glad God has given me the King James Bible to rely on for truth. The King James Bible does not change unless some greedy publisher decides to change words in order to secure a copyright.

In Christ,
George

Yes Brother George only the AV KJ Bible stand`s alone.

Ever heard of the dean burgon society?

Fact is the early Church Father`s in the middle of the 1`st century quoted the TR/RT.Now I know, why the manuscripts behind the modern day versions, were found in a garbage can,because they are corrupted garbage.{Frown}

In Christ.

Brother Steven Miller.

How do 1st century church fathers quote the TR when the TR wasn't compiled 'til the 1600's? In fact, who are the 1st century church fathers? Do you mean 2nd century? Question, how do you know the TR agrees w/ the church father quotations when all of their quotations are slightly different from each other in word order, spelling, & etc.? Have you even examined any of the church father writings? Those modern versions used some of the same mss that the KJ utilized. Are you saying those are corrupted garbage too?

Writers from the middle of the first century quoted the long ending of Mark, I am told, which was about 150 years before the emergence of the Alexandrine text, I have also been told. JGB231 made some posts regarding this some time ago.

I can't find the post at present.

[GT Says Quote]
How do 1st century church fathers quote the TR when the TR wasn't compiled 'til the 1600's? In fact, who are the 1st century church fathers? Do you mean 2nd century? Question, how do you know the TR agrees w/ the church father quotations when all of their quotations are slightly different from each other in word order, spelling, & etc.? Have you even examined any of the church father writings? Those modern versions used some of the same mss that the KJ utilized. Are you saying those are corrupted garbage too?

[Unquote GT]

[BM Comments]

GT You have really been led astray during getting educated.Public Schools teach children evolution does this make it right?No it is called being brainwashed.Refer to post #67 or read it again below.

[End of BM Comment for GT]


[Davo says Quote]

Writers from the middle of the first century quoted the long ending of Mark, I am told, which was about 150 years before the emergence of the Alexandrine text, I have also been told. JGB231 made some posts regarding this some time ago.

I can't find the post at present.

[Unquote Davo]

[BM Comments]

Yes brother Davo you are right.Seminaries {i.e.cemetaries}are producing some real, confused students concerning Bible Text`s.The TR/RT being compiled, in the 1600`s is about as truthful, as evolution.It is a known fact the TR/RT was indeed quoted by early Church Father in the 150`s AD and they only quoted the TR/RT.Modern day seminary education,[So-Called higher learning] especially those that train, Southern Baptist preachers, refuse and deny the TR/RT as the ones the early Church Father`s quoted,so they brain-wash their student to believe a lie from satan,Yea, hath God said?{Genesis 3:1}KJB.

In the Lord Jesus Christ a perfect {Saviour 7 letter`s} NOT a little ole {Savior 6 letter`s}7 is perfect and 6 is the number of man.Amen!

{Brother Steven Miller}which are saved by Grace not being saved through grace.Doesn`t sound Biblical does it? Because it is not.

Also the KJ People are saved {1st Cor 1:18}all other versions including the NKJV is just being saved.{i.e.heresy}

{Post # 67 Again
A characteristic of the new Bible versions is found in the way that virtually very one of them alters Scriptures which plainly teach the Deity of our Lord Jesus. In some cases the teaching is watered down, and in others it is eliminated by altering the punctuation or by deceitful scholarship. There follows a partial list of those found in the New American Standard Version.

K.J.V. John 1:18 - "The only begotten Son, ... He hath declared Him."

N.A.S.V John 1:18 - "The only begotten God, ... He has explained Him."

N.W.T. (Jehovah Witness) - "The only begotten God...is the one that has explained Him."

The Amplified Bible - "The only unique Son, (f) the only begotten God,...hath made Him known." (f) Footnote. "Supported by a great mass of ancient evidence (Vincent)."

By substituting "God" for "Son" the latter three of the above four translations change the glorious truth of God into a lie.

If Christ is really a "begotten God," then the great truth regarding His Deity is invalidated. This rendering delights the heart of the "Unitarian" and the "Jehovah Witness", neither of which believe in the Deity of our Lord Jesus.

The New American Standard Version shares the dubious distinction of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Jehovah Witness' Bible at this and many, many other points of alteration.

Concerning the reading of the Amplified, it is of interest to note, that it also originates with the Lockman Foundation, as does the New American Standard Version.

Does some one feel that this is not evidence of "intent" on the part of translators of N.A.S.V. and The Amplified Bible?

Let us not be in a hurry to reject the evidence.

In the "Foreword" of the New American Standard Version, we read "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version of 1901, KNOWN AS THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY."

"The Rock Of Biblical Honesty." Example of that Honesty?

A.S.V. 1901. John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." That is he worshipped Jesus who had given him who was born blind, his sight.

A disgraceful footnote reads: (re. the word worshipped) "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or the Creator."

This is a plain statement to the effect that the translators as a board have approved a blasphemous doctrine which seeks to make the Eternal One, a created being.

The Change in the N.A.S.V. in John 1:18 is a slightly more subtle insinuation, but none the less repulsive.

Re. the scholarly(?) footnote in the Lockman production, The Amplified Bible. The claim is made that their great substitution in John 1:18 is supported by "a great mass of ancient evidence".

Will some one now please stand up and tell us why this great mass (or mess) of ancient evidence is rejected by the scholars who, while producing exceedingly faulty versions, still did not go so far in following their blind guides (the oldest and best manuscripts) as to fall in to this ditch together with the others; namely Lockman's N.A.S.V., Lockman's Amplified, and Jehovah Witness, New World Translation.

The reading "begotten God" instead of "Son" is rejected by the translators of Douay-Rheims, Knox, R.V. 1881,A.S.V. 1901; (but it does have a corrupt footnote here), R.S.V.; Williams, Moffat, Goodspeed, Twentieth Century, The New Berkeley Version, New English Bible, New International Version, Good News for Modern Man, and The Living Bible. Supremely it is rejected by the unexcelled scholarship of the world's finest and most accurate English translation, THE KING JAMES VERSION.

So much for the "GREAT MASS OF ANCIENT EVIDENCE". Where is it, and why do so very many scholars reject it all at this point?

Kenneth Wuest includes the corrupt reading in his expanded translation of the Gospels. There may be others who do, but out of those so far examined the writer has found only the above four who include this travesty on the person of the Son of God.



John 1:30 K.J.V. - "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for He was before me."

John 1:30 N.A.S.V. - "After me cometh a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me." A footnote reads, "lit. has become before me."

Here is an intimation that there was a time when the Lord Jesus came into existence. Keep in mind that vile footnote of John (9:3 in the Rock of Biblical Honesty.

Even the Rutherford version (New World Translation) which openly denies the Deity of our Lord Jesus, did not dare to insert such a footnote.

John 8:58 K.J.V. - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I AM". Our Lord here claims the great title of Deity. (Exodus 3:14)

N.A.S.V. renders it properly "I AM", but in another of those famous marginal notes recommended so highly by Theodore Epp, and others, we read, "or, I have been". So this helpful marginal note manages to indicate the possibility of a reading which eliminates His great claim to Deity.

Some one says, "it is only in the margin". yes so far it is, but in these new versions, the marginal notes have strange ways of finding their way into the text in later editions.

A good example of this not so subtle intrusion into and change in the text if found in T.E.V. first edition includes the word "Virgin" in the text approx. fourteen times; a slightly later edition, without a word of warning eliminates the great majority of the "virgins".

John 8:58 At this point the Jehovah Witness version is slightly less subtle than the N.A.S.V., for it inserts the reading, "I have been" into the text, while the N.A.S.V.,with its little halo shining, just has it in the margin. In the former the Lord's title "I AM" is rejected out of hand, in the latter it is insinuated that it might not be so.

In so doing the scholars have introduced a Greek tense instead of the Present Active Indicative, first Person Singular, which tends to eliminate the doctrine of our Lord's eternal existence.

It is not hard to understand why this "I have been" should be found in the text of New World Translation; but who among the translators of the N.A.S.V. would give any credence to such a corruption, even in the margin of their work.

It also helps us to understand why Lockman Foundation refuses to divulge the names of the translators of the N.A.S.V. until at least 17 years after the publication of the N.A.S.V. New Testament in 1960.



Rom 14:10 - 12 K.J.V - "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...so then every one of us shall give account of himself to God".

Here is another very plain statement of the Deity of our Lord Jesus. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...to give account of ourselves to GOD. The teaching is obvious.

The N.A.S.V. once again joins with its cousin, the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, and others to eliminate this plain statement of our Lord's Deity.

The process employed is very simple. The judgment seat of CHRIST, is altered to read "The judgment seat of GOD". Now their version no longer clearly teaches His Deity at this point.

Away back in history when the original mutilators of the Scripture produced the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the criminal slipped up and left evidence of their crime. They forgot to mutilate 2Corinthians 5:10 which reads in the "oldest and best" (?) manuscripts, "the judgment seat of CHRIST" at this point.

Our modern scholars, blindly following their corrupt texts, follow them into the mutilation of Romans 14:10-12; perhaps not realizing that in so doing they create a clear contradiction in their new versions. N.A.S.V., New World Translation, and many others bow obediently, to the dictates of dead rationalistic theologians.

N.A.S.V., New World, and most of the others leave 2Corinthians 5:10 to read "The judgment seat of Christ".

Matt 19:16-17 - "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God".

Here the Lord invites his inquirer to consider why he should address Him as "good" stating that only "God" is "good". It is a plain invitation for the man to recognize Christ, as "God manifest in the flesh".

The N.A.S.V. and New World Translation, again conspire in error to remove this glorious truth. In each case the "good" is removed from the text, to make the reading simply, "Teacher". Then instead of "Why do you call me good?", the new reading is "Why are you asking me about what is good?" New World is very similar.

Interestingly in Luke 18:17 - 19 where this same incident is recorded the text is left untouched in both of these versions, one might say in virtually every version which follows Westcott and Hort, or Nestles Greek texts. Once again this creates a built in contradiction in the various versions.



GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH
1Tim. 3:16 K.J.V. - "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundreds of years, millions of Christians have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in thier hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed.

In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's may religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ.

We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

"THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY". American Standard Version of 1901, declares in a footnote: "The word of God, in place of He Who rests on no sufficient ancient evidence, some ancient authorities read which". Now that would look nice wouldn't it? "The mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh"

N.A.S.V. is slightly more kind, its marginal note, which is truly a masterpiece of understatement of the case, says; "some later manuscripts read God."

THE FACTS OF THE CASE
DEAN BURGON - A truly great scholar who personally researched many of the ancient manuscripts. "The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father."

PROF. CHARLES HODGE - Re. "God" in 1Tim 3:16: "For God, we find the great body of the cursive manuscripts, and almost all of the Greek fathers, and the internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the common text."

TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY. Re 1 Timothy 3:16: "At the time of the revision (1881) nearly three hundred Greek copies were known to give indisputable support to the Received Text (God was manifest in the flesh) while not more than a handful of Greek copies could be quoted in favour of "who" or "which". i.e. "Which was manifest in the flesh"

CODEX SINAITICUS. The only manuscript of great antiquity that can be cited in favour of the new reading, "Who was manifest in the flesh", is the Codex Sinaiticus. For notes on the thoroughly unreliable nature of this text see page 6 of this brochure.

CODEX VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS. These two ancient manuscripts share the awesome responsibility for omitting the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Vaticanus leaves a blank space or rather column after Mark 16:8, indicating that the scribe knew he was omitting the verses.

Sinaiticus bears unmistakable evidence of serious tampering with the text at this point, and is therefore an unreliable witness.

Back to 1Tim 3:15 (God was manifest in the flesh.)
In the second century approximately 200 years before the offending Sinaiticus was in existence, the writings of Hippolytus, Barnabus, and Ignatious evidence the fact that second century Christians read "God was manifest in the flesh" in their Bibles.

Dionysius of Alexandria, writing approximately A.D. 264, quotes "God was manifest in the flesh", at least 100 years before either of the "oldest and best manuscripts" were written.

The New American Standard Version makes much of ancient witnesses. Simple integrity demands that the translators should acknowledge that these writings prove that the authors found "God was manifest in the flesh", in Bibles much more ancient in their witness, than those they are using to correct the Authorized Version.

Further, let them now confess that the Authorized, King James Version at this point and on many other occasions transmits to us a text which was in common use, long before the manuscripts used to "revise" the K.J.V. were in existence.

THAT GLORIOUS NAME JEHOVAH
Repeatedly in the New Testament we find clear indications that this glorious Name of our God is the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That blessed Name is filled with revelations of the character of our God. The souls of God's people have been thrilled through the passing centuries with, Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shalom, Jehovah Tsidkenu etc.

The preface to the New American Standard Version of 1963 states, regarding that Name: "It is felt by many who are in touch with the laity of our churches that this name conveys no religious or spiritual overtones. It is strange, uncommon, and without sufficient religious and devotional background. No amount of scholarly debate can overcome this deficiency. Hence, it was decided to avoid the use of this name in the translation proper." Editorial Board, Lockman Foundation.

The Argument "NOT FOUND IN VATICANUS", Is Not Valid.
Vaticanus claimed by many to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript. VATICANUS OMITS:

All of first Timothy

All of second Timothy

All of Titus

Nearly all of Genesis (Gen 1 to 46:29)

The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. (Mark 16:9-20)

Our Lord's prayer on the cross. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)

Our Lord's agony and bloodlike sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Luke 22:44)

The last four and a half chapters of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25)

Thirty three of the Psalms (Psalms 106 - 13

Plus many other omissions

SINAITICUS, second of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, has a history.
Scholars discern the hand of ten different scribes, making many, many alterations over a period of several hundred years. Tischendorf the discovered of Sinaiticus noted 12,000 alterations in the text.

IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS:

1. If Sinaiticus was an accurate copy of the Word of God at the beginning of its history, it is absolutely impossible that it is now, after ten specialists have made so many alterations in the text.

2. If Siniaticus was not an accurate copy of the Word of God at the start, then it is absolutely inconceivable that ten different textual chiropractors labouring over a period of a few hundred years, have succeeded in making what must have been a hopelessly corrupt copy into one of the "oldest and best" of manuscripts.

The marginal notes of the New American Standard Version, which constantly quote "the oldest" or "late mss. add" etc. serve to obscure the truth of God's Word, rather than to enlighten it.

In the light of the above it is evident that the statement "not found in the earliest manuscripts" is at its best misleading, and at its worst either intentionally or unintentionally, a withholding of the actual facts.

EVERY BIBLE STUDENT:

Should beware of accepting any change from the King James Version at any time, but especially when the change is accompanied by the explanation, "not found in the oldest and best manuscripts", regardless of which version they may be examining.

Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institure, Prairie Bible Institute, have all properly rejected the Revised Standard Version. In each case exception is taken to the fact that this version fails to exhibit the full Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

james516, at least you acknowledged my comments. It is about time.

I have to ask, do you know what the TR is? IT was actually compiled shortly AFTER the 1611 KJ edition. I think your idea is that the TR agrees w/ the early church fathers. It could not be the other way around because the TR didn't exist until the 1600s. First of all, that is not even exclusively true - not by a long shot. And second, you probably have not study the early church father's text, much less the TR (correct me if I am wrong). So how can you say such things? I'll tell you how. YOu are relying on the scholarship of others. You are trusting the views of someone else. YOu are regurgitating the bias of someone else. Ironically, that is something that is criticized on my camp (being too scholarly), but it is reciprocal. Again, If I am wrong, james516, and you have personally studied the Greek & Latin writings of the church fathers or the TR (not to be confused w/ the KJ) then I retract this.

[GT Says:Quote]

I have to ask, do you know what the TR is? IT was actually compiled shortly AFTER the 1611 KJ edition. I think your idea is that the TR agrees w/ the early church fathers. It could not be the other way around because the TR didn't exist until the 1600s. First of all, that is not even exclusively true - not by a long shot. And second, you probably have not study the early church father's text, much less the TR (correct me if I am wrong). So how can you say such things? I'll tell you how. YOu are relying on the scholarship of others. You are trusting the views of someone else. YOu are regurgitating the bias of someone else. Ironically, that is something that is criticized on my camp (being too scholarly), but it is reciprocal. Again, If I am wrong, james516, and you have personally studied the Greek & Latin writings of the church fathers or the TR (not to be confused w/ the KJ) then I retract this.

[GT Unquote]

[BM Comments]

GT You have been deceived on purpose.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

From the birth of Christ to 100 A.D. the original manuscripts were written in the Greek language.

The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
by 170 A.D. -- 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.

by 400 A.D. -- all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included.

The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts.

The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.
the original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.


452-1453 A.D. -- The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

1516 A.D. -- Erasmus edited the first printing of the Greek N.T.

This was in agreement with the Textus Receptus.


1526 A.D. -- Tyndale's New Testament in English was printed. He was burned at the stake in 1536 because he had the Bible printed in English.

1550 A.D. -- Stephens Greek N.T. (Textus Receptus).

1611 A.D. -- The King James or Authorised Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T. and Hebrew Masoretic Text in the O.T.

1611 A.D. -- To the present. Infidels and assorted enemies of the Bible have attacked our Bible in every way known to man, but God's Word shall abide forever.

Good info.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

There are some erros in your last post. Erasmus' first edition was not the same as the TR or "in agreement with the Textus Receptus" as you said. There are some variants, but the most blarring of variants is that he left out the debated phrase in 1 John 5:7. It wasn't until his 3rd edition that he changed it. So which is it?

You also speak of the TR being used from 452-1453 but it wasn't compiled til the 1600's. You are not presenting accurate historical information.

Again, the TR was not compiled til after the KJ was translated. Ironic isn't it. YOu even mention the first GNT printed and compiled by Erasmus. THerefore, there could not be a TR b/c by your own admition Erasmus preceded the TR.

[GT]

The Italic`s are even inspired by God in the KJB GT.

If I could show you that Jesus and Paul quoted the KJB would you convert to KJ Only?

Before we go on with this discussion brother [GT] thats being saved.

Inh Christ.

Brother Miller.

If the italics are inspired then that must mean that you hold to 2nd inspiration or re-inspiration. Is that true?

It would be a start, but you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Christ & Paul spoke KJ English.

It seems that you are starting backwards as it is. Would Christ quote the KJ or the KJ quote Christ? You're question is flawed off-gate.

By the way, you asked if I was an Ecumenist and I said NO. THen I asked you if you were a Gnostic? You have not denied it, so I am starting to wonder .

This post was last modified: Fri Jun 06, 2008 09:04 PM by Greektim.

[GT]If I am a gnostic I will be willing to bet you are lost.Read the below if not you care nothing for the truth.Watch the angry insult`s.

QUESTION: I've heard that the italicized words in the King James Bible should be removed because they were added by the translators. Should they be removed?
ANSWER: If we remove any of the italicized words we must either remove them ALL or accept them ALL as Scripture.

EXPLANATION: Following are the problems with removing the italicized words from the Bible:


1. Anyone who has ever translated from one language to another knows that words MUST be added to the finished work to complete the sentence structure of the new language.


All translators do this when translating the Bible. The King James translators were men of integrity so they put the added words in italics.


Example #1


Psalm 23:1 reads "The LORD is my shepherd" in the King James Bible. The word "is" was added by the translators to complete the sense of the sentence.


Psalm 23:1 in the New International Version reads, "The LORD is my Shepherd."


So it is plain to see that both sets of translators added the same word to complete the sentence. Yet the King James translators put the word in italics to inform the reader that they had added it.


Example #2:


John 1:8 reads, "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light" in the King James Bible.


John 1:8 reads, "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light" in the New King James Version.


Again both sets of translators have added words to their translation so that it would make sense. In this case it is the phrase "was sent." Yet again, it is the King James translators who put their addition in italics for clarity.


Thus we see that the translators of our Bible should be commended on their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words instead of castigated for a practice which all of our modern "would be" scholars follow routinely.


2. Critics of the Bible, fundamental or otherwise, claim that the italics can be removed, but NEVER remove them all. Usually they are stumped by a passage such as the word "unknown" in I Corinthians 14. Since they cannot explain the passage with the italicized word in the passage they make the thoughtless statement reproduced above and remove the problem word.


But this opens a tremendously large "can of worms"! For if we say that italicized words do not belong in the text, we cannot say that one italicized word should be removed from the Bible, but we must say that ALL italicized words must be removed from the Bible. Even the casual student of Scripture knows that the Bible will make no sense at all if ALL italicized words are removed.


To remove one italicized word and leave another in is to claim Divine Inspiration in knowing which words should go and which words should stay.


Regardless of how great a preacher, soul-winner, or scholar might be none of us are going to bow our knees to them with the claim that they are Divinely inspired to reject or accept words in the Bible. If we are so foolish as to exalt a man's opinion in such a way, who should we exalt? There are hundreds of Bible critics who would vie for the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector".

Who would be the lucky person? How would we choose him? And WHO would be so naive as to think that all Christians would follow his decrees? Yet without his decrees we have NO WAY OF KNOWING which italicized words belong in the Bible and which ones do not.


So we see that overcoming problem passages will require prayer and Bible reading instead of carelessly removing a troublesome word.


3. One of the classic defenses for leaving the italicized words alone is found in II Samuel 21:19.


"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaaroregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."


By omitting the italicized words we have the Bible saying that Elhanan killed Goliath. Of course everyone knows that I Samuel 17 says that David killed Goliath. So we finally have the Bible that all lost men love to refer to when they say, "The Bible has contradictions in it".


Of course, our "Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector" would probably say the italics in II Samuel 21:19 do not need to be removed. But then who's to know which words to remove or which ones to keep in unless God "appeared" to them and told them.


4. Our fourth and best reason for not meddling with God's choice of words for His Bible comes from none other than the Apostles Peter and Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.


First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and read Psalm 16:8. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.


You will notice that the two words "he is" are in italics. Yet when we find the Apostle Peter quoting this verse in the New Testament in Acts 2:25 we find it says:


"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:"


So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm 16:8 italicized words and all! You would almost believe that God wanted them in there wouldn't you?


Now it might be pointed out that Peter was an unlearned and ignorant man (Acts 4:13) and so, lacking the "benefits" of a Bible college education, he blindly accepted the Bible (King James?) as every word of God. But let us look at the same phenomena concerning the Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Paul, as did other New Testament writers, often quoted from the Old Testament in his writings. In doing so, he quoted as did the others directly from the Hebrew Text. We have several of Paul's quotes which contain words not found in the Hebrew original.


In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1.
Romans 10:20: "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me."


Isaiah 65:1 "I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name."


Yet we see that the words "them that" which Paul quoted as though they were in Isaiah 65:1 exist only in the italics of the King James Bible.


The same is true of I Corinthians 3:20, "And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." which is a quote of Psalm 94:11, "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity." where we find the word "are" supplied by the translators.


But the most unexplainable is Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I Corinthians 9:9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."


Here we find Paul quoting the words "the corn" just as if they had been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the italics of our Authorized Version!


If one were to argue that Paul was quoting a supposed Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, our dilemma only worsens. For now, two perplexing questions present themselves to us. First, if such a Greek translation ever existed, (which is not documented in history) by what authority did the translators insert these words? Secondly, if they were added by the translators, does Paul's quoting of them confirm them as inspired?


While you ponder these important questions, we will note that Jesus also quoted from what appears to have been a King James Bible.


We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals". In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible.


Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."


You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse.


Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 9:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.


"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can locate "ramati", a form of "rama", which is Greek for "word", in any Greek New Testament.


So, just as critics of the Bible like to joke and say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul so it's good enough for me." A true Bible-believer can truly say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me".


So we see we have three options on what to do with the italicized words in the Bible.
(1) Remove All of them.
(2) Exalt one of our fundamental Bible critics to the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector" and then give his decrees all the weight and allegiance that we would give to Jesus Christ.


(3) Leave all the words in our divinely inspired Bible alone, and trust that just maybe Jesus Christ is correct.


It's as though we had a choice.

http://www.chick.com

We can discuss the italics later. There is another thread for that. Show me that Christ and Paul quoted the KJ. I am very intersted in seeing your reasoning on that one.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to insult you. At least not in the way you insulted me many times. I apologize if you took me that way. I was simply asking you a question. I only asked if you were a gnostic (the most random thing I could come up with at the time) because you asked me if I was an ecuminist (seemed quite random). No malice intended, just trying to be as random as you.

[GT]Ignore the Italic`s.That is what you were supposed to look at, which you have clearly ignored.You are dead set at being right even when you are wrong.If your new avatar picture is you on the left you are still wet behind the ears, and, have a long way to go.

A good education in Liberal Cemetaries can get people into deep trouble with the Lord.

Read the article below where Jesus,Peter,and Paul quoted the Italic`s also because it knock`s a hole in everything you have learned.You are a young want`a be James White KJB Critc.You really need to hear the audio Gail Riplinger`s spanking of James White.

A good education, has caused John McAuthor to deny that the blood of Christ is not that important it was Christ death that saved him.Well true enough on the death of Christ but without the blood he is as lost as a goose.

If you cannot read the article below there is no nead to carry on, with our discussion.You are a Liberal Critic of God`s Word and others can see that.

QUESTION: I've heard that the italicized words in the King James Bible should be removed because they were added by the translators. Should they be removed?
ANSWER: If we remove any of the italicized words we must either remove them ALL or accept them ALL as Scripture.

EXPLANATION: Following are the problems with removing the italicized words from the Bible:


1. Anyone who has ever translated from one language to another knows that words MUST be added to the finished work to complete the sentence structure of the new language.


All translators do this when translating the Bible. The King James translators were men of integrity so they put the added words in italics.


Example #1


Psalm 23:1 reads "The LORD is my shepherd" in the King James Bible. The word "is" was added by the translators to complete the sense of the sentence.


Psalm 23:1 in the New International Version reads, "The LORD is my Shepherd."


So it is plain to see that both sets of translators added the same word to complete the sentence. Yet the King James translators put the word in italics to inform the reader that they had added it.


Example #2:


John 1:8 reads, "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light" in the King James Bible.


John 1:8 reads, "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light" in the New King James Version.


Again both sets of translators have added words to their translation so that it would make sense. In this case it is the phrase "was sent." Yet again, it is the King James translators who put their addition in italics for clarity.


Thus we see that the translators of our Bible should be commended on their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words instead of castigated for a practice which all of our modern "would be" scholars follow routinely.


2. Critics of the Bible, fundamental or otherwise, claim that the italics can be removed, but NEVER remove them all. Usually they are stumped by a passage such as the word "unknown" in I Corinthians 14. Since they cannot explain the passage with the italicized word in the passage they make the thoughtless statement reproduced above and remove the problem word.


But this opens a tremendously large "can of worms"! For if we say that italicized words do not belong in the text, we cannot say that one italicized word should be removed from the Bible, but we must say that ALL italicized words must be removed from the Bible. Even the casual student of Scripture knows that the Bible will make no sense at all if ALL italicized words are removed.


To remove one italicized word and leave another in is to claim Divine Inspiration in knowing which words should go and which words should stay.


Regardless of how great a preacher, soul-winner, or scholar might be none of us are going to bow our knees to them with the claim that they are Divinely inspired to reject or accept words in the Bible. If we are so foolish as to exalt a man's opinion in such a way, who should we exalt? There are hundreds of Bible critics who would vie for the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector".

Who would be the lucky person? How would we choose him? And WHO would be so naive as to think that all Christians would follow his decrees? Yet without his decrees we have NO WAY OF KNOWING which italicized words belong in the Bible and which ones do not.


So we see that overcoming problem passages will require prayer and Bible reading instead of carelessly removing a troublesome word.


3. One of the classic defenses for leaving the italicized words alone is found in II Samuel 21:19.


"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaaroregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."


By omitting the italicized words we have the Bible saying that Elhanan killed Goliath. Of course everyone knows that I Samuel 17 says that David killed Goliath. So we finally have the Bible that all lost men love to refer to when they say, "The Bible has contradictions in it".


Of course, our "Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector" would probably say the italics in II Samuel 21:19 do not need to be removed. But then who's to know which words to remove or which ones to keep in unless God "appeared" to them and told them.


4. Our fourth and best reason for not meddling with God's choice of words for His Bible comes from none other than the Apostles Peter and Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.


First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and read Psalm 16:8. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.


You will notice that the two words "he is" are in italics. Yet when we find the Apostle Peter quoting this verse in the New Testament in Acts 2:25 we find it says:


"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:"


So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm 16:8 italicized words and all! You would almost believe that God wanted them in there wouldn't you?


Now it might be pointed out that Peter was an unlearned and ignorant man (Acts 4:13) and so, lacking the "benefits" of a Bible college education, he blindly accepted the Bible (King James?) as every word of God. But let us look at the same phenomena concerning the Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Paul, as did other New Testament writers, often quoted from the Old Testament in his writings. In doing so, he quoted as did the others directly from the Hebrew Text. We have several of Paul's quotes which contain words not found in the Hebrew original.


In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1.
Romans 10:20: "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me."


Isaiah 65:1 "I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name."


Yet we see that the words "them that" which Paul quoted as though they were in Isaiah 65:1 exist only in the italics of the King James Bible.


The same is true of I Corinthians 3:20, "And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." which is a quote of Psalm 94:11, "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity." where we find the word "are" supplied by the translators.


But the most unexplainable is Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I Corinthians 9:9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."


Here we find Paul quoting the words "the corn" just as if they had been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the italics of our Authorized Version!


If one were to argue that Paul was quoting a supposed Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, our dilemma only worsens. For now, two perplexing questions present themselves to us. First, if such a Greek translation ever existed, (which is not documented in history) by what authority did the translators insert these words? Secondly, if they were added by the translators, does Paul's quoting of them confirm them as inspired?


While you ponder these important questions, we will note that Jesus also quoted from what appears to have been a King James Bible.


We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals". In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible.


Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."


You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse.


Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 9:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.


"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can locate "ramati", a form of "rama", which is Greek for "word", in any Greek New Testament.


So, just as critics of the Bible like to joke and say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul so it's good enough for me." A true Bible-believer can truly say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me".


So we see we have three options on what to do with the italicized words in the Bible.
(1) Remove All of them.
(2) Exalt one of our fundamental Bible critics to the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible Corrector" and then give his decrees all the weight and allegiance that we would give to Jesus Christ.


(3) Leave all the words in our divinely inspired Bible alone, and trust that just maybe Jesus Christ is correct.


It's as though we had a choice.

Oh, was the italics part of your proof that Christ quoted the KJ?

You are right. It's a good thing I didn't go to one of those.

This post was last modified: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:02 PM by Greektim.