dolphinheart:


The content is not what we are discussing , what we are discussing is if those words should be there or not and how (if its there)it should be put there.

If I, living in the 12th century add the word "God is good" to any verse in the manuscript . Does the fact that other part of the manuscript read "god is good mean it can be added in another area or verse where it does not exist initially?

Other questions which you can add the answers to in ur reply.

Since you said you have read some of the manuscripts , which is a big lie anyway ,Does the earliest manuscripts have verses and chapters?

Does all the manuscripts correspond to each other word for word?

Did the kjv use the earliest available manuscripts (oldest manuscripts that are closer to the time the original was written and has less number of copyist thus reducing human error)that we have now ?

How do you differentiate and determine the right manuscript when sentences are found in one manuscript and not found in the other. ?

Bro, never conclude one is lying until you have a sound evidence. I have mentioned it earlier (of course if you have read through all my posts you should have seen it) It was people like William Tyndale and the scholars of KJV bible that grouped the bible into verses.

As I have said, on the issue of manuscript (Erasmus Greek 1560 and Hebrew) of which I used translator, were the original one (evidences coming up soon). What Erasmus did was to compare the original text in Greek to the Church's LAtin version side by side of which later showed the contradictions. It was thesame manuscript that landed him in house arrest in 1534 and was held under house arrest for 500 hundred days and was later burnt for what? for providing the people with the original manuscript (which opened the eyes of the people to lies of the papist authority at the time); the manuscript was used to for KJV bible. So tell me, which manuscript again? if not the deception of the devil.

And again your points are baseless

Samneer:


Bro, never conclude one is lying until you have a sound evidence. I have mentioned it earlier (of course if you have read through all my posts you should have seen it) It was people like William Tyndale and the scholars of KJV bible that grouped the bible into verses.

As I have said, on the issue of manuscript (Erasmus Greek 1560 and Hebrew) of which I used translator, were the original one (evidences coming up soon). What Erasmus did was to compare the original text in Greek to the Church's LAtin version side by side of which later showed the contradictions. It was the same manuscript that landed him in house arrest in 1534 and was held under house arrest for 500 hundred days and was later burnt for what? for providing the people with the original manuscript (which opened the eyes of the people to lies of the papist authority at the time); the manuscript was used to for KJV bible. So tell me, which manuscript again? if not the deception of the devil.

And again your points are baseless

1. You did not answer the questions I asked.

2. List the scholars of kjv and let's see if they had anything to do with inserting verses and chapters in the english version of the scriptures.

3. There where english translations before the kjv, are u saying those translations did not put their translations in verses cus it was the scholars of kjv that first did it ?

4. Sorry for calling you a liar, but let's look at the evidence. You first said you have read the manuscript , now u are saying u used a translator . A translator created by someone or some people . You did not read the original manuscript, the original manuscript is in a language u dnt understand.

5. Are all available manuscripts same word for word?

6. What is the criteria used by the kjv to choose one manuscript Above the other.

7. Is the kjv translated from the earliest available manuscript ?

8 what will you do if after 200 years of popular use u find out that a verse should not be there, will u rearrage the verses or just omit the words in that verse.

9. Does the manuscripts used by the kjv not contain any error ?how do u prove its authenticity and accuracy ?

Fari9482:


I agree, why is the KJV held up above all others?

Was the KJV the very first bible on the planet? If it was not the first bible then why is there a position that the KJV is the only bible, and the only so called "inspired bible." Who decided that the books we have today is the bible? We do know there are other books that are not included in the so called Cannon right? So what about those books?

We can only say the Bible is the word of God based on the Bible, correct? Are there other books written that are equally held as being inspired that endorse that belief?

Please I have a hard time with circular reasoning, so those who want to quote bible verses to me to show why it is the Word of God, is just circular reasoning. We really should not use circular reasoning, that is using the book to validate the same book. I know that is what is done however it does not really help in my view.

What were people doing before this KJV? Is it the position that before the KJV there was no word of God? My poor ancestors that never read, and never read English are doomed I suppose. They did not have a bible.

Very good point. The OP probably belongs to some fringe evangelical KJV Only sects. He is unwittingly telling us that only those who speak English have Bibles. Is there a Zulu version of KJV? I doubt very much. And the KJV is only 500 years old. Therefore no logic in the OP.

Samneer:


Thanks bro. Before I could even write on something like this in the first place, I have made my research well and doubtfully came to a conclusion that the other versions you now see all around are all hiding under the version of being an easy to read, technologically advancement and simplicity
I did my research with an open mind, having them compared one to another. I read several thesis, critics, manuscripts(I am still coming to that in my next post)
As I have said in one of my replies to elantraceey

Maybe we ll talk more when you present your findings.

I was not the one who wrote this one you responded to

My choice of being a King James only Christian is based on weighed options, cogent points and doctrinal standards. Many are in pitfalls and their eyes have been blinded to see the truth, all because of this counterfeit and spurious words of men framed as word of God.

Finally bro - John 8:32 KJV

Shallom

Samneer:


Bro, never conclude one is lying until you have a sound evidence. I have mentioned it earlier (of course if you have read through all my posts you should have seen it) It was people like William Tyndale and the scholars of KJV bible that grouped the bible into verses.

As I have said, on the issue of manuscript (Erasmus Greek 1560 and Hebrew) of which I used translator, were the original one (evidences coming up soon). What Erasmus did was to compare the original text in Greek to the Church's LAtin version side by side of which later showed the contradictions. It was thesame manuscript that landed him in house arrest in 1534 and was held under house arrest for 500 hundred days and was later burnt for what? for providing the people with the original manuscript (which opened the eyes of the people to lies of the papist authority at the time); the manuscript was used to for KJV bible. So tell me, which manuscript again? if not the deception of the devil.

And again your points are baseless

Try and do your research well sir, I think I saw some mistakes.

Recheck where you got the info for what you said about:

1. Erasmus Greek text 1560, did he personally write a 1560 edition? Did he live up to that time?

2. William Tindale and King James' scholars inventing the chapters and verse divisions as we have it today. were they the ones that really did it?

3. Erasmus was burnt (lynched), recheck your source.

4. Erasmus consulted few manuscript for his text. Am not sure he even had up to 10 manuscripts. and some of what he used did not have all the NT portions complete. Research that too.

Note: there are thousands of manuscripts, and the ones available for erasmus to consult were the latter manuscripts, not the older ones we now have available.

More research is profitable.

Peace!