Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Before the KJV


...

Recommended Posts

  • Members
2 hours ago, brandplucked said:

In the wisdom of God something can be in process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume.

God has preserved His words in the Scripture of truth that is recorded in heaven. They will never pass away. But we also see the Scriptural principle that, though His words may be hidden away or forgotten for a time, as the history of Israel itself shows, yet He progressively reveals them and when they are all gathered together and brought to light, then make up "the book of the LORD."  

Psalms 12:6-7 says: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. This Psalm says the words of the LORD ARE pure, and that God will keep them from this generation for ever.  Up to this point we only have about half of the Old Testament and it was in the Hebrew text.  God has kept His pure words in the Hebrew text.  GOD keeps His words, even though man may forget them or hide them away, or not even has access to them himself.  But God knows where they are and He will keep and preserve them from this generation for ever.

Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe they are. How about the whole New Testament? Can we apply the principle of preservation to the New Testament as well?  Are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. Keep in mind, it is GOD who preserves His words, even though man may not know where they are, or has neglected them or forgotten them or doesn't even have access to them. This in no way nullifies the promise of God to preserve His words.

Brother Kinney,

How may I begin to express my gratitude for the time and effort you put into responding to this issue?  I don't seem to have the words, so please accept a very sincere, "Thank you."  

Your response speaks to the way that I have come to surmise how God experiences time.  I tell people that God is outside of our conception of time.  I tell them that, perhaps, our human time and space is like a book.  I go to my shelf and pull out a copy of Oliver Twist, hold it out and say, "What time is it in this story, right now?"  For the reader, every moment has already happened; it just depends upon where we choose to open the book and start reading, but the characters, themselves, are bound by the illusion of linear time.

Your explanation offers an almost tangible example of that concept and there were moments, as I was reading, that I got full body chills.  The pre KJV question is as clear as crystal to me now. Thank you again for your very thoughtful and thorough response.

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yet a question remains --

Has the Lord our God promised to preserve with perfect purity every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Scriptures in Heaven alone, or has He promised to preserve with perfect purity every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Scriptures for each generation of His people upon this earth?

Indeed, the Biblical doctrine of preservation is very much engaged in this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Kinney,

It was a blessing in reading your position concerning the King James, the various arguments involved in its reliability. We do apperciate your work on, and fine spirit, in presenting your materials and background on the King James issue.

I enjoyed the whole article. Since it is so lengthly, I just wanted to pick out a few gems for all of us to chew on.

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistently, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. 

This is true.

 

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.

This is true also. A lot of saints in history never had a complete set of the books of the Bible.

 

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.  

Excellent thought that we do not think about when we quote Psalm 12:6 & 7

 

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

But after the invention of the printing press with its moveable type by Gutenberg around 1540, the Bible could be printed on a wide scale and placed in the hands of the common man, God gathered ALL His preserved and perfect words, purified them from minor corruptions and had them put into His final masterpiece - the Authorized King James Holy Bible - the Book that has indeed transformed our world and that He has been pleased to use far more than any other Bible in history. 

Good.

4 hours ago, brandplucked said:

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistently, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

Good conclusion.

Kinney,

May the Lord bless you.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Kinney,

1.  Do you believe that the translators of the King James translation were inspirationally "moved by the Holy Ghost" (see 2 Peter 1:21) for their work of translation in the same manner as the original "holy men of God" whom the Lord our God originally employed to communicate forth the original writings of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures?

2.  Do you believe that the Lord our God has promised to divinely preserve His Holy Scriptures from generation to generation, for each generation, down to each and every "jot and tittle" (see Matthew 5:18) of the original communication of His Holy Scriptures?

3.  Do you believe that the original communication of our Lord's Holy Scriptures were perfectly pure when they were originally communicated forth in the original Hebrew and Greek by the original "holy men of God" whom the Lord our God employed to write them?

Hi Scott Markle. Thank you for your questions. I think that if you actually read my post, I answered theses questions already.

#1. No, the KJB translators were not writing new inspired Scriptures. They were merely the men God used to give us his pure and preserved words that had already been inspired. 

#2. I answered this in my post. I think you are looking at the verse in the wrong way. It does NOT say that there would be a perfect Bible in every generation, but that God would preserve his words. I believe he did. But the verse does not tell us WHERE they would be preserved, and at that time most to the Bible had not even been written yet.

I don't think that YOU believe there IS now or ever WAS a complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language. Right?  If you think I am wrong about this and making unfounded assumptions, then all you have to do is to SHOW US a copy of what you really believe IS or WAS the complete and inerrant words of God.  Can you do that for us?

#3. Yes.  Do you have a copy of them you can show us?  If God inspired them, and I believe he did, then did he also preserve them?  Do you know where they are today?

God bless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet a question remains --

Has the Lord our God promised to preserve with perfect purity every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Scriptures in Heaven alone, or has He promised to preserve with perfect purity every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Scriptures for each generation of His people upon this earth?

Indeed, the Biblical doctrine of preservation is very much engaged in this question.


Hi Scott Markle. I believe it is preserved in heaven, and that we actually have his pure and preserved words today on earth in the King James Bible.  Do YOU believe there IS such a thing on earth in any language that IS the complete, preserved and inerrant words of God?

If Yes, can you show us a copy?

If No, are you willing to admit it?

Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:10 PM, brandplucked said:

Hi Scott Markle. I believe it is preserved in heaven, and that we actually have his pure and preserved words today on earth in the King James Bible.  Do YOU believe there IS such a thing on earth in any language that IS the complete, preserved and inerrant words of God?

If Yes, can you show us a copy?

If No, are you willing to admit it?

Thanks.

Brother Kinney,

It is my desire to provide a more thorough response unto your answers; however, time restrictions have not permitted me to do so.  In particular, I desire to present a response unto your position concerning the doctrine of preservation, which I believe to be a Biblically faulty position.

Yet with this posting I do intend to provide a quick answer unto your above question toward me -- YES, absolutely, I believe that the Lord our God both has promised and has been faithful unto His promise to preserve His pure and holy Word in the original languages of their originally inspired authorship, that is -- in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and in the original Greek for the New Testament.  I believe that those pure and preserved words are to be found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Received text of the Greek New Testament.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Scott Markie says: "YES, absolutely, I believe that the Lord our God both has promise and has been faithful unto His promise to preserve His pure and holy Word in the original languages of their originally inspired authorship, that is -- in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and the original Greek for the New Testament.  I believe that those pure and preserved words are to be found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Received text of the Greek New Testament."

Hi Scott. Two things. You did not answer my question, and I don't believe you.

There IS NO original Hebrew or Greek, and you know there isn't.  You are confessing a faith in a Phantom bible that you not only have never seen (and probably could not read even if you had it) but in something that YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST.

I asked you if you can SHOW ME a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in.  You did not do that.  All you did was give me some vague, ballpark approximation of what you think may be the complete and inerrant words of God, and they are in languages that most people in this world can't even read.

All modern versionists maintain that "the" Hebrew text (there is no such animal) has been corrupted in many places, and as far as 'the' Received Text, again, there is no such animal.

 

Two questions.  Can you show me a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in?  Yes or No?


Do you believe that any English bible is inerrant?  If not, which one do you think comes the closest?

Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Hi Scott. Two things. You did not answer my question, and I don't believe you.

There IS NO original Hebrew or Greek, and you know there isn't.  You are confessing a faith in a Phantom bible that you not only have never seen (and probably could not read even if you had it) but in something that YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST.

Brother Kinney,

There most certainly IS the original Hebrew and Greek of God's Holy Word still in existence today, found in divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies . . . etc.; or else our Lord God's promise of "jot and tittle" preservation is false.  As for me, I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that our Lord's promise of "jot and tittle" preservation is NOT AT ALL false.  You may deny His promise of "jot and tittle" preservation if you will, but I most certainly WILL NOT.

Now, before I respond to your accusation against me of "lying," and before I proceed to answer you next set of questions, I present that it is now your turn to answer some questions.  You made the proposition of the thread.  I responded with questions.  You answered; and than asked your set of questions.  I answered, and now I ask another set of questions.  Your turn to answer.

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:57 PM, brandplucked said:

Hi Scott Markle. Thank you for your questions. I think that if you actually read my post, I answered theses questions already.

#1. No, the KJB translators were not writing new inspired Scriptures. They were merely the men God used to give us his pure and preserved words that had already been inspired. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

You state that the King James translators gave us the "pure and preserved words" of God "that had already been inspired."  As such, those pure and preserved words had to have already existed before the King James translators gave them unto us in English.  So then --

1.  Did the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of copying from an English language form to English, or through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English?  (Note: Consider the definition of the word "translation.")

2.  If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, from what foreign language forms did they find these "pure and preserved words" of God, which "had already been inspired" (your own words) and thus had already existed before the King James translation of 1611?

3.  If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, in what foreign language texts did they find these "pure and preserved words" of God, which "had already been inspired" (your own words) and thus had already existed before the King James translation of 1611?

4.  If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, how long had those foreign language texts been existence (through divine preservation) and been honored of God before the 1611 King James translation ever existed?

5.  On the other hand, if the Lord our God has ONLY preserved HIs words with perfect purity in heaven, and not in any language form on the earth before the 1611 King James translation, then how did the King James translators get these perfectly preserved and pure words down out of heaven in 1611?

6.  Furthermore, if you believe that the Lord our God has promised to preserve His Word with perfect purity ONLY in heaven, then what authority do you have to claim that the King James translation IS the perfectly pure and preserved Word of God, since the King James translation is NOT in heaven, but is on the earth?

7.  Based upon the position that you have presented thus far, do you believe that the Lord our God did not begin HIs divine work of preservation until the 1611 King James translation came into existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi Scott Markle. You are still not answering my question. Can you SHOW US A COPY of this complete and inerrant words of God Bible you say you believe in?  Yes or No?

To help you better understand my position on this issue, may I recommend you read my article Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?

If you think there was, or is now, in ANY language, then simply answer the question and show it to us.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Hi Scott Markle. You are still not answering my question. Can you SHOW US A COPY of this complete and inerrant words of God Bible you say you believe in?  Yes or No?

To help you better understand my position on this issue, may I recommend you read my article Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?

If you think there was, or is now, in ANY language, then simply answer the question and show it to us.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

God bless.

Brother Kinney,

If you desire for me to physically SHOW you a copy this very instant, I cannot since we are conversing on the internet.  Therefore, I cannot SHOW you any physical book in my possession.

However, if you desire for me to answer whether I possess a physical copy of the Masoretic text in the Hebrew and of the Received text in the Greek, I do indeed possess a published copy of both.  These published copies are NOT the actual "parchment and ink" of these texts, but they are published copies thereof.  Just as your 1611 or 1769 King James translation is not the original "parchment and ink," but is a published copy thereof.

As far as your article, I already read it completely through when you posted it in this thread.  I myself have various disagreements with that article; however, the two most significant are the following:

1.  You claim that there are only four possible positions concerning the matter; however, I will contend that there is at least a fifth possible position - which is the one that I am presenting unto you, the Masoretic and Received text ONLY view.  As such, I reject all four of the positions that you presented.  In introduction to your presentation of your four possible viewpoints, you state the following: "Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions."  I myself AM NOT a King James translation critic.  Rather, I believe with conviction that the King James translation is THE ONE translation of God's Holy Word in English that English speaking people should use today.  Furthermore, I believe with conviction that the King James translation is a perfectly accurate translation of our Lord God's perfectly preserved Word, which I believe IS found in the Masoretic text Hebrew Old Testament and the Received text Greek New Testament.  I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW.  I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text.

2.  I believe that your position concerning the King James translation, as presented in your article, stands upon a faulty view concerning the doctrine of preservation.  The doctrine of translation is only implied in God's Holy Word.  However, the doctrine of preservation is directly taught therein.  As such, to be Biblically correct we must build our doctrine of translation (of which our position on the King James translation must be a part, since it IS a translation) must be built upon the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In your article you present a position concerning the doctrine of preservation that the Lord our God ONLY promised to preserve His Holy Word with purity and perfection IN HEAVEN.  I would contend against that position, and would claim that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Holy Word with CONTINUOUS, GENERATIONAL (ON THE EARTH), PRECISE ("JOT AND TITTLE") preservation.  By the way, if you are correct in your position that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word with purity and perfection ONLY IN HEAVEN, then NO text or translation of God's Word on the earth has Biblical grounds for claiming to BE that pure and preserved Word on the earth.  Biblical faith is faith that is built upon a word from God about a matter.  Empty faith is faith that is built upon one's own desires or agenda.  IF (as you present, but I contend against) we only have a word from God that He would preserve His Word IN HEAVEN, then we have NO word from God that He would preserve it upon the earth.  Even so, IF (as you present, but I contend against) we have NO word from God that He would preserve His Word upon the earth, then any claim of such for ANY text or translation is made APART FROM any word of God on the matter, and is thus "empty faith."

Now then, if you wish to continue this discussion, please understand that I will be pushing it toward a consideration of the Biblical doctrine of preservation BEFORE we proceed further on other matters.  As such, you also have the option now to answer the questions that I have presented unto you above, which questions seek to parse the relationship of the King James translation with the promise and fulfillment of the Lord our God concerning preservation.  You yourself indicated that the King James translators gave us in English what already existed prior to 1611.  As such, it would appear that the Lord our God did INDEED preserve His Word through the years of the generations from their original giving, all the way down to 1611.  The questions are available for you to answer; so then, what answers do you give?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Can you SHOW US A COPY of this complete and inerrant words of God Bible you say you believe in?  Yes or No?

 

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Kinney,

If you desire for me to physically SHOW you a copy this very instant, I cannot since we are conversing on the internet.  Therefore, I cannot SHOW you any physical book in my possession.

However, if you desire for me to answer whether I possess a physical copy of the Masoretic text in the Hebrew and of the Received text in the Greek, I do indeed possess a published copy of both.  These published copies are NOT the actual "parchment and ink" of these texts, but they are published copies thereof.  Just as your 1611 or 1769 King James translation is not the original "parchment and ink," but is a published copy thereof.

 

I agree in full with Bro. Scott's post, but if you need a visual... I'm not at home to take a picture, so I took screen grabs from what I do own.

 

KJV.bmp

MT.bmp

MT-TR Interlinear.jpg

TR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi Scott. You tell us: " I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW.  I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text."

Scott, again, I do not believe you. It looks like you are more of a Greekophile than a King James Bible 
believer.  I am not ignorant of the textual issues. So, my question (which I think you are going to dodge) is WHICH "the" Greek Received text do you believe is the complete and inerrant New Testament that (according to you) is this "preserved  Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW."???

Was there an inerrant Bible in English before the King James Bible? If so, which one was it?

And Scott, there is no such animal as "the" Received Text.  


 

 

The Textus Receptus has had over 25 revisions, all varying from one another. No absolute definition of the TR actually exists...

 

A few of these revisions are:

 

1516 - Erasmus' first edition

 

1519 - Erasmus' second edition - More than 400 changes from the first edition

 

1522 - Erasmus' third edition - More than 100 changes from his second edition

 

1527 - Erasmus' fourth edition - More than 100 alterations of the third edition, 90 of them in Revelation

 

1546 - Stephanus's first edition

 

1549 - Stephanus's second edition - more than 60 changes from the Stephanus's first edition

 

1550 - Stephanus's third edition - Includes varient readings in the margins

 

1551 - Stephanus's fourth edition - The first time the text is divided into numbered verses

 

1565-1604 - Beza's eleven editions - Minor changes in Stephanus's text. All of Beza's editions vary somewhat from Stephanus's and from each other 

 

1624 Elziver edition  - You can see it online here - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/mat.1.tr1624

 

1633 - Elziver's second edition - First called the Textus Receptus (22 years after the publication of the KJV)

 

1650 - Elziver's third edition - Differs from the second edition in about 287 places

 

In addition, the TR that is used today (published by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not identical to any of the references above, but is an "eclectic" text that draws its readings from different sources. The modern day TR that underlies the King James Bible can be called “a variety of the Textus Receptus”  

 



Scott, you can show us a copy of what you say is this inerrant Bible you believe in because all these things in their various forms are on the internet. 

I can show you a copy of my inerrant Bible. You can see it here at this site


https://www.biblegateway.com
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
43 minutes ago, TheSword said:

 

 

I agree in full with Bro. Scott's post, but if you need a visual... I'm not at home to take a picture, so I took screen grabs from what I do own.

 

KJV.bmp

MT.bmp

MT-TR Interlinear.jpg

TR.jpg

Hi Sword. What you have there in "the" Hebrew is Jay P. Green's own, personal translation.  Jay Green did NOT believe several readings in the particular TR that underlies the KJB were inspired Scripture. He did not believe 1 John 5:7 was inspired.

How does, not Green, but the Hebrew text you have there read in Psalms 22:16 where the KJB says "they pierced my hands and my feet"?  

How do you reconcile the two different ages of Jehoiachin in the Hebrew text?

How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18?

2 Chronicles 36:9 KJB  (ESV 2001 edition) - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days."

2 Kings 24:8 KJB"Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months."

And regarding that Greek copy you show here, it looks like it is the Scrivener text of 1894, right?

Are you aware that NO Bible in any language and NO other Greek New Testament read the same way in many places before 1894?  Do you know how Scrivener came up with his Greek text?

So, what exactly was this " preserved  Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW." BEFORE this particular Greek text by Scrivener that you show us here?
 
Edited by brandplucked
I misspelled a word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
42 minutes ago, brandplucked said:

Hi Scott. You tell us: " I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW.  I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text."

Scott, again, I do not believe you. It looks like you are more of a Greekophile than a King James Bible 
believer.  I am not ignorant of the textual issues. So, my question (which I think you are going to dodge) . . . . (Emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Ah, yes, let us talk about "dodging questions." In an above posting I asked of you seven questions (here).  Have you yourself answered those questions, or have you yourself "dodged" them?  Well, you yourself have not provided a single word of answer to those seven questions; therefore, it appears that "dodging" IS INDEED your manner of response.

It is YOUR TURN to answer some questions, not mine.  What answers do you give?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
40 minutes ago, brandplucked said:

Hi Sword. What you have there in "the" Hebrew is Jay P. Green's own, personal translation.  Jay Green did NOT believe several readings in the particular TR that underlies the KJB were inspired Scripture. He did not believe 1 John 5:7 was inspired. 

I don't use it for Green's translation, I use it for the text and parse it myself along with the KJV rendering, that's why I included a picture of a KJV for you. You'll also notice I included non-interlinear copy of the MT and TR as well. You're using special pleading and a loaded question to assert that I'm reading and supporting a Jay P. Green version of the Bible.

51 minutes ago, brandplucked said:

How does, not Green, but the Hebrew text you have there read in Psalms 22:16 where the KJB says "they pierced my hands and my feet"?  

Do you read Hebrew? If not, there's no point getting into this discussion.

52 minutes ago, brandplucked said:

How do you reconcile the two different ages of Jehoiachin in the Hebrew text?

How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18?

2 Chronicles 36:9 KJB  (ESV 2001 edition) - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days."

2 Kings 24:8 KJB"Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months."

Co-regency. It was the common practice in Judah to ensure the desired succession.

1 hour ago, brandplucked said:

And regarding that Greek copy you show here, it looks like it is the Scrivener text of 1894, right?

Yes, which has no substantive differences from the Beza 1598, Stephens 1550, Erasmus 1527/1535, and Complutensian Polyglot used in KJV translation.

1 hour ago, brandplucked said:

Are you aware that NO Bible in any language and NO other Greek New Testament read the same way in many places before 1894?  Do you know how Scrivener came up with his Greek text? 

Question 1: What exactly do you mean by that?

Question 2: Yes.

1 hour ago, brandplucked said:

So, what exactly was this " preserved  Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW." BEFORE this particular Greek text by Scrivener that you show us here?

I get the notion you're attempting to walk this back to the point that the originals and many of the early copies are no longer in existence. Am I correct in understanding your overall point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...