What was part of the TR?You quoted Gen.1:2 of which you provide no proof,and claim you cave proof.
Obviously you have not tested anything. You just assume the KJV Only position without checking out personal challenges. Not the position one should take if they are interested in truth.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
The King James Version (Authorized) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [/FONT]
yen.P -l;[ .$,v{x.w .Wh{b'w .Wh{t h't.y'h #,r'a'h.w
~Iy'M;h yen.P-l;[ t,p,x;r.m ~yih{l/a ;x.Wr.w ~w{h.t
Now, check out 'was' and see the Hebrew word means became, not was. And 'and' is not in the Hebrew at all.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Strong's Number: 01961[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Browse Lexicon[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Word Origin[/FONT]
hyh[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
a primitive root [compare (01933)][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Hayah[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
TWOT - 491[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Phonetic Spelling[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
haw-yaw
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Verb [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Definition[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
- to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
- (Qal)
- ----- 1a
- to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a
- to come about, come to pass
- to come into being, become 1a
- to arise, appear, come 1a
- to become 1a
- to become 1a
- to become like 1a
- to be instituted, be established
- to be 1a
- to exist, be in existence 1a
- to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a
- to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a
- to accompany, be with
- (Niphal)
- to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
- to be done, be finished, be gone
[/FONT]
A clear Catholic doctrine interjected into the translation.
The KJV is wrong.
The NIV, NASB and NKJV all recognize the problems and drop the 'and,' linkage to being part of verse 1. The NIV is the most accurate in conveying the meaning by saying 'Now' and adding the footnote.
God is a God of light, not darkness. He does not create chaos. And he created darkness, not light. Three firm Biblical declaration the KJV is in conflict with via mistranslation.
While another topic that you may wish to reply to there, search for the thread on Pre-Adamic Creation. The language and such or Genesis 1 is greatly expanded upon within it.
But of course, that is a different topic, and should be replied to there.
Also you blurt out about Unicorns being wrong,but of course you are thinking the New Age Unicorn,right?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Strong's Number: 07214[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Browse Lexicon[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Word Origin[/FONT]
~ar[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
from (07213)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
R@'em[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
TWOT - 2096a[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Phonetic Spelling[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
reh-ame'
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Noun Masculine [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Definition[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
- probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
[/FONT]
There is no room for the word unicorn in the Hebrew. Unicorn means one horn, any way you cut it.
Yep, the New Age Unicorn did exist in the thinking of the time the KJV was written. But not at the time the OT was written.
So,I must assume you are talking about Prayer and fasting.And Luke 2:4 Peace,good will toward men?
Fasting is not in the Greek. It is an add.
And the 'good will' is a flat out mistranslation.
To start off with,just how do you think that all manuscripts are available to give such an athoritative statement,Namely "That did not exist before the 1500's"
Where are they then? Ones supporting these errors before 1500? Give us a link to them.
I know for sure that there are many many manuscripts that are gone for good.
Guessing is not proof of your claims. It is wishful thinking.
Most likely in the hundreds of thousands.We have only about 5.200 extant Greek manuscripts.Plus,who is to say that all originals were in only Greek?All originals are gone and even if one showed up,you wouldn't be able to prove that it is.So you still have yet to prove your possition to start with.
Your claims that what did not appear until 1500 is proof?
You are exercising negative proof claims. Prove your claim wasn't true else it is true.
That is an unacceptable practice in any court of law, logics class, semantics class and any formal debate. One must deal with what is, not what might be.
And there are far older manuscirpts. No manuscript even begins to support your position until under the Catholics of the Byzantine Empire.
I have older mansuscripts. And testimony from those who knew the Apostles. You have offered nothing but assumptions.
By your claims that means in the older finds those things added to the Textus Receptus would have had to been removed. An idea for which there is no support.
Plus you can't call in err what is regularily done in both the Hebrew and the Greek on all translations of them.Namely adding words that are not really there in the Hebbrew tongue or Greek,just for it to make sense in English.
There is a big difference between translation clarifications and deliberately changing the thought and word meanings, such as 'and' does to Genesis 1:2, unicorn and fasting.
All Bibles do this as a matter of course.But of course,you won't stop these false accusations will you?
Yep, even the KJV contains dynamic translation. But adding such as already mentioned is not dynamic translation. It is alteration.
And I also, in recognition of dynamic translation, cross reference and use interlinear. Which is obviously something KJV Only do not do.
It would be of some even playing field if you would show me your perfect Holy Bible.And then we could discuss real issues,instead of attack and defend.
A nonsensical and illogical argument that does not justify using the KJV over other versions.
The errors of the KJV are real errors. And you have already made your statement on other translations being heretical. So you have staked your claim and position very clearly.
So name me your perfect pure Holy Bible that God preserved and inspired,that I can read and learn and preach and teach with.
Perfect? Cannot do.
Superior to the KJV? That I can do. Cross reference the NIV and NASB using an Interlinear on the side for serious study. For less serious the NIV because its has very good dynamics to it (but always have the NASB and Interlinear available as well for head scratching areas.)
Then we can get into this matter of Fasting,and Peace.Fair enough?
If you wish to discuss any doctrine, I and others here are always ready to dig into research and discussion.
The issue of fasting, in example, gets into doctrines some hold. Fasting adds to the Biblical stated position of faith, name of the Lord and being wise as to when to cast out. So do you really want to add to how God said to handle things?
O,and if you think that it is just a ruse to not answer your statements,think again.
It is a bait and switch technique.
Notice the thread topic. The KJV. Not the NIV. Not the NASB. The KJV.
You want to challenge them, start a new thread on which ever you wish. But don't try to change the thread issue, the KJV.
We don't need to drag in the others to resolve the issue of the KJV. We need to look at the KJV.
Yep, done this too many times. KJV Onliests always want to divert to other versions.
Please stay on topic. If you can defend the KJV manuscript sources, do so. If you can only defend by trying to discredit older manuscripts, then you have failed already.
Again, Majority Text did not begin until 400 AD. Textus Receptus until 1500s. And the alterations and such involved are not theories and such. They are documented and known historical facts.
So, if you have manuscript history linking back into the origins of the Greek manuscripts used to formulate the Majority Texts, please provide it. I would love to study it.
But that will not and does not overcome the known changes made when moving from the Majority Texts to the Textus Receptus. Those problems I would love to see you arguments for.
Really, created in the 1500s and they are suppose to be THE Bible?
So,have at it;show me your Bible.
Start another thread to discuss other versions. But make sure you answer the questions to the issues you started here. Part of our rules is to not run away from one argument to restart issues elsewhere.
Do both if you wish. But don't dodge answering here as well.
That rule exists because it is so common, on other forums, for people to get boxed in on an argument, then just stop posting there while cranking up the issues again on another topic. An endless cycle of preaching the same position but never answsering challenges.
If you can give us the evidence, please do so. Truth is our goal here.
