Which translation is correct?

[Jemand]

And after we complete these steps we would agree with you ?
That the bible is "corrupted".
Just think of all those years where Christianity flourished, all that time they were using a "corrupted" text!
But now that we have so many new translations it is clear to everyone that the bible is corrupted!

I guess I might be seen as someone who simply "loves the KJV" and has no concern for the direction which all you highly intelligent folks are taking the bible.

If you were to complete those steps, you would have the choice to either agree or disagree based upon a wealth of objective, pertinent information. You would know for a fact, however, that all of the ancient Greek manuscripts that include large portions of the New Testament disagree with each other and that no two of them are alike. Therefore, at the very least, all but one of them is corrupted to some extent, and all of the manuscripts from which the New Testament in the King James Version of the Bible was translated include numerous errors, including spelling errors, word omissions, word and phrase additions, etc. That is why the translators of the King James Version used several Greek different manuscripts and texts of the New Testament to prepare their translation—and they did an excellent job with what they had to work with.

Today, we have over 5,800 ancient manuscripts of all or part of the Greek New Testament, and the goal of textual criticism in to determine, as accurately as possible, which readings in the manuscripts are the original readings, and which readings are variant readings—that is, corruptions, most of which are very minor.

Some people are very happy with a ’57 Chevy as long as it gets them to work and back and is reliable enough for an occasional road trip. Some other people demand a new, flawless Bentley Mulsanne motor car costing well over $300,000.

http://www.bentleymotors.com/models/mulsanne/
http://www.bentleymotors.com/models/...e/performance/
http://www.bentleymotors.com/models/...specification/

Not every Christian has the financial means to purchase such a fine automobile as the Bentley Mulsanne, but even the very finest translations of the Bible cost no more than the King James Version. Indeed a used copy of the Revised Standard Version with the second edition (1971) of the New Testament can often be found for as little as $1 in a thrift store, and it is a Cadillac-quality translation.

I got saved through preaching and teaching from the King James Version, and I grew rapidly because I avidly fed upon my King James Version. I do not have a Bentley Mulsanne and I have no need of one, but what a thrill it would be to own one and take it out onto the road (check out the specs!). My Ford F-150 pickup is getting me where I need to go, but if had been able to purchase a brand new Bentley Mulsanne instead for the same price, I would have gone for it! Even better, I would have purchased both!

[Jemand]

Exactly my point in regards to Hebrew and Greek languages.

If you honestly think that our current definitions of these languages is the same as when these scritpures were originally written then I say apply the same logic you are using to understand how english has changed.
When the very nature of the languages is changing over time then we begin to fool ourselves when we say that we better understand the language today than they did in the past.

The meanings of words are learned by how they are used. Today’s lexicographers of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages during Biblical times read everything that they can find written contemporaneously in those languages to determine the meanings of the words used in the Bible at the time the individual books were written. Because English is an exceptionally dynamic language that is rapidly changing, Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, and Greek-English lexicons have to be frequently revised in order to reflect these changes in English—in addition to taking into consideration the increasingly more accurate understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words.

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

[Jemand]

Jemand's main point (and I don't imply that I'm speaking for him - I'm just saying what I understood his meaning to be) was that despite his great education, he misunderstood KJV English. Hundreds of words we still use have changed meaning. He read verses for years that he didn't understand and didn't even realize he misunderstood the meaning. That is the biggest problem of the KJV. It isn't a case of the translators doing a poor job even. They did great. However, English has changed --- drastically. The KJV is not clear now. It was perfectly clear in prior times.

Yes, indeed!

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"
"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

[rejoice44]

Even if a doctrine is true, that doesn't give anyone the right to add to God's word to defend a true doctrine. 1 John 5:7 isn't even defended by all who prefer the KJV. Many of them deny that it belongs. And you're using Dan Wallace's website. Dan agrees with modern versions on 1 Timothy 3:16. So is Dan in on all of this too?

I was using a website that contained the Alexandrian manuscripts in Greek. Didn't know it belonged to Dan Wallace.

What do you mean when you ask if Dan is in on all of this too?

[rejoice44]

Are you a Christian rejoice44? Do you believe the word of God? Why are you trying to say the bible has all kinds of mistakes in it? Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit preserves His word?

I never said the bible has all kinds of mistakes in it. I trust the bible completely. Please don't take my words out of context.

[rejoice44]

What did they accomplish? Not what you think. You point to 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 in your mind you see something criminal. I see faithful restoration.

Have you ever examined and compared those three [(01), (02), and (03)] Alexandrian manuscripts, yourself, in relation to 1 John 5:6-8 Joe?

The reason I asked is because I have, and there seems to be some serious problems with them. You need to follow this very carefully.

Codex Sinaiticus

1 John 5:6-8

(6)This is the one having come (by) water, and blood, and spirit, Jesus Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the spirit is the (one who) bears testimony, because the spirit is truth. (7)Because which three there are who bear testimony, (8)the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one there are.

Codex Vaticanus

1 John 5:6-8

(6)This is the one having come by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the spirit is the (one who) bears testimony because the spirit is the truth. (7)Because which three there are who bear testimony, (8)the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one there are.

Codex Alexandrinus

1 John 5:6-8

(6)This is the one having come by water and blood, and spirit, Jesus Christ, not by water only, (but) by the water and the spirit. And the spirit is the (one who) bears testimony because the spirit is truth. (7)Because which those three there are who bear testimony, (8)the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one there are.

KJB

1 John 5:6-8

(6)This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (7)For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. (8)And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree.



Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus agree in the first phrase of verse 6.

“This is the one having come by water and blood, and spirit,”

The Codex Vaticanus and the King James agree in the first sentence of verse 6.

“This is the one having come by water and blood;”

Notice that the difference is the missing words (and spirit) in Codex Vaticanus and the King James.

If the correct reading is “-- by water, and blood, and spirit” you end up with three, but when you go to the rest of the sentence you have only two, “the water, and the blood.”; it doesn’t compute.

In the next clause we have Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the KJ all agreeing.

“not by water only, but by water, and blood.”

And then we have the Codex Alexandrinus by itself.

“not by water only, but by water, and spirit.”

So why does Codex Alexandrinus have “spirit” in place of “blood”?

If water, blood, and spirit are the correct rendition then there is something wrong with the second clause which reduces the water, blood, and spirit to just water, and blood.

The only rendering that makes any sense is the KJV.

Can you or any one else explain the confusion among the Alexandrian manuscripts in 1 John 5:6-8?

[Zack702]

Yes, indeed!

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"
"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

syn·o·nym, noun
synonyms, plural

1.A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close

Are you going to tell me that this supposed "corrution" is mearly synonyms that we have caused due to our increasing vocabulary ?

Let me show you a example of how dynamic the KJV is...

See below how in the KJV the text clearly reveals that some words are synonymous and that either the root word or there synonym equates to the same value ?

In this example, bear record = bear witness

Also note how almost every other translation has taken away these synonyms and thereby decreasing the stimulation that a reader will recieve had they of incorporated the synonyms...


1 John 5

KJV
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

American Standard
7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Contemporary English
7In fact, there are three who tell about it.
8They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.

Wycliffe
7 For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [For three be, that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Ghost]; and these three be one.
8 And three be, that give witnessing in earth, the Spirit, water, and blood; and these three be one.

Youngs Literal
7because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
8and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

[rejoice44]

Philpot was terrified of the unknown and as I stated, got no predictions correct. What verses he said would change in new versions were already well documented and predictions he did make about "priests" and "penance" which has no manuscript basis never came to fruition.

Philpot said they would remove 1 John 5:7. They did that.

Philpot said they remove God from 1 Timothy 3:16. They did that.

Philpot said the revisers would be Puseyites (Unbelievers), or Neologians (Anglo Catholics). That's what happened.

Philpot said there would then be more than one bible. Just how many are there now?

Philpot said there would be endless debates. What are we doing?

Philpot was right when he said they wanted to do more, it is just taking longer than they hoped.

Philpot seems like a pretty smart fellow in retrospect.

Philpot doesn't help your case. It just makes you look desperate to use anything that hints at supporting your antagonism of modern versions.Philpot was terrified of the unknown. I read a different translation every year from Genesis to Revelation. His fears were baseless.

Philpot was guilty of believing God, when God said not to add, or subtract from the Word. Some men have no fear of God.

[TrustGzus]

Philpot said they would remove 1 John 5:7. They did that.

Philpot said they remove God from 1 Timothy 3:16. They did that.

Norman, I already addressed this. You didn't counter. So you just restate it again? What's the point of that. Ok . . . I'll restate my counter.

I already said these predictions aren't impressive because this data was well known at the time.

1 John 5:7 wasn't in Erasmus' first two editions of his Greek text and he grudgingly put it in for his third. Martin Luther's translation didn't have 1 John 5:7 either as the KJV but rather reads like the modern versions. The church fathers, for all the battling over the Trinity they did, don't use this verse in their argumentation. In light of all of this, is Philpot really insightful about this? You'd have to be an ignoramus to not see that coming.

Same with 1 Timothy 3:16. The textual evidence was already known about in 1857. This wasn't rocket science on Philpot's part.

Philpot said the revisers would be Puseyites (Unbelievers), or Neologians (Anglo Catholics). That's what happened.

So what, Norman? What's the point? They went with the textual evidence. Doesn't matter if it's an Evangelical or a monkey. Did you read Dan Wallace's article I attached in one of my previous posts? Particular his addendum?

Philpot said there would then be more than one bible. Just how many are there now?

'

There was more than one Bible in Philpot's time. The KJV was just the most recent. Again, no brain surgery required to figure out that more versions would come.

Philpot said there would be endless debates. What are we doing?

You know, I don't have endless debates except with KJVO people. If KJVO people would stop talking, I'd rarely talk about this subject.

Philpot was right when he said they wanted to do more, it is just taking longer than they hoped.

Like what? You've already agreed that no doctrines have been removed or added.

Philpot seems like a pretty smart fellow in retrospect.

Really? He nailed what was already well-documented before he wrote. This would be like me predicting half of the teams in Major League Baseball's 2012 playoffs. The writing's already on the wall for so many teams. And when he prognosticated about what manuscripts didn't say, i.e. he said "priests" and "penance" would be added, he blew those predictions. The only things he predicted correctly was what was already documented in manuscripts in his day and some which already matched Luther's Bible.

What's Martin Luther's sinister reason for leaving out 1 John 5:7?

Philpot was guilty of believing God, when God said not to add, or subtract from the Word. Some men have no fear of God.

The KJV added to God's word. It's not ok to add to God's word even if what is added is true. Now when Evangelicals restore the text more to what the autographs read, you vilify them. Dan Wallace documented this in the article I linked for you. Did you read the article?

[Brother Mark]

You know, I don't have endless debates except with KJVO people. If KJVO people would stop talking, I'd rarely talk about this subject.

Yea. That was my thought on the issue too. Most believers I know are growing the Lord and being sanctified and they almost all use a modern translation. The vast majority of them don't even know there is a "debate" on the issue. For most of us, there is no debate. It generally only comes up when someone from a KJVO background or someone that wants to talk about which set of manuscripts is right/wrong, brings it up. So the idea that there's a debate is generally wrong. It's typically only one side that even has a concern about it. The rest are reading their bibles and growing in the Lord regardless of which version they are using.

For the record... I use to be a KJVO advocate.

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE=TrustGzus;2829792]There was more than one Bible in Philpot's time.

Not true, there was only one English bible in use at that time, and it had been in use for two hundred years.

You know, I don't have endless debates except with KJVO people. If KJVO people would stop talking, I'd rarely talk about this subject.

That is because most people today are totally unaware of what happened at the end of the nineteen Century. The people alive then knew and rejected the ASV, for it was in disuse. If they merely examined these Alexandrian manuscripts for themselves they would begin to understand.

The KJV added to God's word.

If that is true why don't you explain why those Alexandrian manuscripts show utter confusion in 1 John 5:6. They couldn't decide if Jesus come by the water and the blood, or the water, blood, and Spirit. You see when they eliminated most of 1 John 5:7 they created a dilemma. Verses 5,,6, and 7 no longer made any sense when they removed, Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost. If they had removed all of verses 5, 6, and 7 there wouldn't have been any problem, but by removing the middle part they didn't know how to handle the rest. Two of the manuscripts added "and spirit" in the first part of verse 6, but in doing so the second part of the compound sentence no longer made any sense. If you have the three, "water, blood, and spirit" in the first clause, and then you refer to the second clause only having two entities, "; not by water only, but by the water and the blood", what happened to the spirit? The Codex Alexandrinus put the three, "by water, and blood, and spirit" in the first clause, and then in the second clause put "but by the water, and the spirit". What happened to the blood?

You take these three manuscripts away, and 1 John 5:7 would never have been removed in a thousand years.

You want to talk about things that there is no longer any physical evidence for. I challenge you to explain away what these three manuscripts did in 1 John 5:6-8. Did (01) Codex Sinaiticus, and (02) Codex Alexandrinus add "and Spirit" in 1 John 5:6, or did (03) Codex Vaticanus remove "and Spirit"? Why did (02) Codex Alexandrinus replace blood with Spirit in the second clause of 1 John 5:6?

If you have an answer for this without getting into some other rhetoric I would like to hear it.

[Boo]

Yep, 200. Not 2000. The KJV is only just another translation. There is nothing devine about it that is not true of many others.

We can prove many words were added or changed in the KJV, but for some reason, KJVO people refuse to admit it.

[rejoice44]

Yep, 200. Not 2000. The KJV is only just another translation. There is nothing devine about it that is not true of many others.

We can prove many words were added or changed in the KJV, but for some reason, KJVO people refuse to admit it.

You keep attacking on a personal note, but how about a little substance Boo. You say the first English translations added words to 1 John 5:7 when it was found in the Old Latin. There is no evidence that that the Greek is superior to the Latin, since neither are the originals. Those Greek manuscripts added "and spirit" to 1 John 5:6, but the New translations do not follow the Greek manuscripts. Why? Does "and spirit" belong in 1 John 5:6. The Greek manuscripts have to show themselves superior to the bible that existed prior to their existence, or else by what authority did they change the Bible?

And what are you referring to, when you say 200, not 2,000?

[TrustGzus]

There was more than one Bible in Philpot's time.

Not true, there was only one English bible in use at that time, and it had been in use for two hundred years.



That is because most people today are totally unaware of what happened at the end of the nineteen Century. The people alive then knew and rejected the ASV, for it was in disuse. If they merely examined these Alexandrian manuscripts for themselves they would begin to understand.



If that is true why don't you explain why those Alexandrian manuscripts show utter confusion in 1 John 5:6. They couldn't decide if Jesus come by the water and the blood, or the water, blood, and Spirit. You see when they eliminated most of 1 John 5:7 they created a dilemma. Verses 5,,6, and 7 no longer made any sense when they removed, Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost. If they had removed all of verses 5, 6, and 7 there wouldn't have been any problem, but by removing the middle part they didn't know how to handle the rest. Two of the manuscripts added "and spirit" in the first part of verse 6, but in doing so the second part of the compound sentence no longer made any sense. If you have the three, "water, blood, and spirit" in the first clause, and then you refer to the second clause only having two entities, "; not by water only, but by the water and the blood", what happened to the spirit? The Codex Alexandrinus put the three, "by water, and blood, and spirit" in the first clause, and then in the second clause put "but by the water, and the spirit". What happened to the blood?

You take these three manuscripts away, and 1 John 5:7 would never have been removed in a thousand years.

You want to talk about things that there is no longer any physical evidence for. I challenge you to explain away what these three manuscripts did in 1 John 5:6-8. Did (01) Codex Sinaiticus, and (02) Codex Alexandrinus add "and Spirit" in 1 John 5:6, or did (03) Codex Vaticanus remove "and Spirit"? Why did (02) Codex Alexandrinus replace blood with Spirit in the second clause of 1 John 5:6?

If you have an answer for this without getting into some other rhetoric I would like to hear it.

You didn't comment on Dan Wallace's article and your thoughts on that. Nor did you tell me why Martin Luther left out 1 John 5:7.

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE=TrustGzus;2829986]

You didn't comment on Dan Wallace's article and your thoughts on that. Nor did you tell me why Martin Luther left out 1 John 5:7.

There is a difference between second, third, and fourth hand speech, and actual evidence. Martin Luther left it out because Erasmus left it out in his first edition. Erasmus later put it back in. Martin Luther isn't here to answer questions about his German translation. Nor is Wycliffe, or Tyndale who put it in the English translation.

What is amazing is that the majority of the people who took a poll on what bible they used said, by a majority of greater than two to one, they used the KJB. So the majority of the people still have it in their bible, in spite of all the attempts to remove it.

You have yet to comment on actual evidence, in contrast to hearsay evidence.

I presented evidence that Simonides wrote the Codex Sinaticus in the nineteenth Century, and you never presented any evidence to the contrary.

I presented evidence that one man provided the three main Greek manuscripts, when requested by Hort to find rich material with which to change the Bible.

I provided evidence that two of the main Greek manuscripts added "and Spirit" in 1 John 5:6. 1 John 5:6 "This is the one having come by water, and blood, and Spirit," You neither said it should, or shouldn't be in the Bible. Just no comment.

Those Greek manuscripts shouldn't be used to determine anything in the Bible, not when they cannot be trusted.

Take John 9:35 where Jesus said, do you believe on the Son of God. Two of the manuscripts Tischendorf supplied replaced "Son of God" with "son of man". Why would anyone believe on the "son of man"? Codex Alexandrinus, the first Greek manuscript on display said, "Son of God". Even the ERV and the ASV had "Son of God". What do all the new manuscripts have? Son of man.

Codex Alexandrinus had "God manifested in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and because of that it was considered inferior to the manuscripts Tischendorf supplied.

Codex Sinaiticus left "the Son of God" out of the first verse in Mark. The TNIV left out "Son of God". The TNIV is the same translation committee that translated the NIV. It doesn't take much for them to remove anything having to do with the Deity of Christ, does it?