Christian Forums

The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. (The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

This is just Matthew, these changes and deletions is done all the way to Revelation...

I notice that you failed to mention the inaccurate translation of Daniel 8:14 in your glowing recommendation of the KJV. 

: Hobie  Mon Nov 04, 2019 - 10:57:57
The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. (The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

This is just Matthew, these changes and deletions is done all the way to Revelation...

And you failed to mention the inappropriate placement of the comma in Matthew 5:17.

However they did get the comma placement correct in Luke 23:43

: Hobie  Mon Nov 04, 2019 - 10:57:57
The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. (The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

This is just Matthew, these changes and deletions is done all the way to Revelation...

Now how about Adventist doctrines, one of the physical manifestations of Ellen White when she went into vision was that like Daniel, the breath went completely out of her, she did not breathe, often for hours. Notice the difference between the NIV and the KJV.

Dan 10:17 (KJV) For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

Daniel 10:17 (New International Version)
17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."


We see, "I can hardly breathe" is a far cry from "neither is there breath left in me"

Notice this next example also taken from the Book of Daniel:
Dan 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Daniel 3:25 (New International Version)
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

What son of what god are they talking about here? Jupiter, Baal, Apollos? The sun god of the Babylonians, Mirtha......?

It seems that Richard/Hobie is more into preaching than discussion. 

Who told you that the KVJ was the correct translation of Daniel 10:17?

Who told you that your assumptions about the words of Daniel 10:17 are the correct assumptions? 

: Hobie  Sat Nov 09, 2019 - 06:38:15
Now how about Adventist doctrines, one of the physical manifestations of Ellen White when she went into vision was that like Daniel, the breath went completely out of her, she did not breathe, often for hours. Notice the difference between the NIV and the KJV.

Dan 10:17 (KJV) For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

Daniel 10:17 (New International Version)
17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."


We see, "I can hardly breathe" is a far cry from "neither is there breath left in me"

Notice this next example also taken from the Book of Daniel:
Dan 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Daniel 3:25 (New International Version)
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

What son of what god are they talking about here? Jupiter, Baal, Apollos? The sun god of the Babylonians, Mirtha......?

: current occupant2  Sat Nov 09, 2019 - 10:22:36
It seems that Richard/Hobie is more into preaching than discussion. 

Who told you that the KVJ was the correct translation of Daniel 10:17?

Who told you that your assumptions about the words of Daniel 10:17 are the correct assumptions?

Get something with substance rather than just your own ideas, lots of self but little else.

Then the doctrine of the GodHead:

Acts 17:29 King James Version (KJV)
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
 
Romans 1:20 King James Version (KJV)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The NIV removes the critically important word “Godhead” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9.

Acts 17:29  (New International Version, )
29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

Romans 1:20  (New International Version, )
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Colossians 2:9  (New International Version, )
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,


Those are the only 3 mentions of the Word in the Bible; yet, they have all been removed. Then we have the following:

John 1:3 (New International Version, )
"3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Now here is what the King James Bible says...

John 1:3, “All things were made BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

1st John 5:7 in the NIV reads...

1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
"7 For there are three that testify"

Here is what King James Bible reads...

1st John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Subtly this is a change affecting the deity of Jesus Christ.

We find it again in NIV in Colossians 1:16...

Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)
"16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

Now here is what the King James Bible says...

Colossians 1:16, “For BY HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

The King James Bible says that “by Him,” that is, by Jesus Christ, were all things created. The Scriptures attribute creation directly to the Lord Jesus Christ

The NIV doesn't miss the point again in John 1:10...

John 1:10 (New International Version, ©2011)

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

Here is what the faithful King James Bible reads...

John 1:10, “He was in the world, and the world was MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not.”

Satan knows that if he can change each new version of the Bible just a little bit, then it won't be too long before all truth is gone.

Why haven't you addressed the inaccuracies in the translation of the King James Version?

Really, Richard, you are just as obnoxious over on the other board that no one can become a member of. 

Good thing that Elijah, Gene, James French, JohnB and the others aren't here of every one would see the negative character you exude over there. 

: Hobie  Mon Nov 04, 2019 - 10:57:57
The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

A little education for you all on this one verse.Mathew 1:25

I am not at all here to defend the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but your  reference to the Catholics and their contentions that Mary stayed a virgin....

IT IS NOT their bible, or their original translation that is to fault for them keeping Mary a Virgin but man who has distorted what they originally were given to read in the original English translation.

Their Douay Rheims Version of the Catholic Bible  says

1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And what we know of Their Douay Rheims Version is


THE NEW TESTAMENT was first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582.

The whole Revised Version has diligently been compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, A.D. 1749-1752.

So the Catholic translation was published before the "authorized" King James of 1611.

The Latin Vulgate Mathew 1:25

25 Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum.

translates

25  had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son and named him Jesus.

So it is man who does indeed corrupt scriptures.

It gets more interesting   ::headscratch::

NOW........

The King James is not the end all of translations.

There are things I have great issue with, the least of these not being the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4, inplace of Passover.

But the link here is a great indicator of the "fact" the Holy Word has had a history of claimed wrong translations, and you can rest assured  they will continue into the future until He returns.

Two editions were printed in 1611, later distinguished as the "He" and "She" Bibles because of the variant readings "he" and "she" in the final clause of Ruth 3:15 ("and he went into the city"). Some errors in subsequent editions have become famous. Perhaps the most notorious example is the so-called "Wicked Bible" (1631), whose byname derives from the omission of "not" in the injunction against adultery in the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt commit adultery"). The printers were fined £300 for the error.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-James-Version

: seekingHiswisdom  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 08:32:55
A little education for you all on this one verse.Mathew 1:25

I am not at all here to defend the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but your  reference to the Catholics and their contentions that Mary stayed a virgin....

IT IS NOT their bible, or their original translation that is to fault for them keeping Mary a Virgin but man who has distorted what they originally were given to read in the original English translation.

Their Douay Rheims Version of the Catholic Bible  says

1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And what we know of Their Douay Rheims Version is


THE NEW TESTAMENT was first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582.

The whole Revised Version has diligently been compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, A.D. 1749-1752.

So the Catholic translation was published before the "authorized" King James of 1611.

The Latin Vulgate Mathew 1:25

25 Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum.

translates

25  had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son and named him Jesus.

So it is man who does indeed corrupt scriptures.

It gets more interesting   ::headscratch::

NOW........

The King James is not the end all of translations.

There are things I have great issue with, the least of these not being the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4, inplace of Passover.

But the link here is a great indicator of the "fact" the Holy Word has had a history of claimed wrong translations, and you can rest assured  they will continue into the future until He returns.

Two editions were printed in 1611, later distinguished as the "He" and "She" Bibles because of the variant readings "he" and "she" in the final clause of Ruth 3:15 ("and he went into the city"). Some errors in subsequent editions have become famous. Perhaps the most notorious example is the so-called "Wicked Bible" (1631), whose byname derives from the omission of "not" in the injunction against adultery in the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt commit adultery"). The printers were fined £300 for the error.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-James-Version

Very true, but most errors are very easy to spot and you can use the many thousand of the manuscripts to compare. Now when you take the few Alexandrian manuscripts and basically make them the standard while the Majority text is disregarded, then there is a issue.

: current occupant2  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 22:02:52
Why haven't you addressed the inaccuracies in the translation of the King James Version?

Why not begin one if you truly are concerned on this issue.

: Hobie  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 09:31:44
Why not begin one if you truly are concerned on this issue.

So RICHARD, you tell us by your statement above that you are not even concerned that the KJV might have some errors nor are you concerned that it does have errors. 

You have just admitted your own confirmation bias and nullified your opinions in front of the audience you seek to influence. 

: Hobie  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 09:31:44
Why not begin one if you truly are concerned on this issue.

Let's... ::clappingoverhead::

Lets address the true elephant in Acts 12:4

Acts 12:4 KJV
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

This was corrected in the NKJV

Acts 12:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four [a]squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Now... just for the fun of it....consider the "fact" that when the original transcripts were written there were no punctuations.

Luke 23:43 KJV has an entirely different meaning if instead of

Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

the comma after thee was moved to after today to read

Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise."

And NKJV  43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
Still has the thief entering into paradise that same day Jesus was crucified... who did not go to paradise that day.



Instead of over the centuries of being taught that Jesus promised the thief he would be with Him in paradise today, the day of crucifixion....

And changes it to Jesus promising on crucifixion day that the thief would be with Him in paradise.

: seekingHiswisdom  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 13:12:01

Let's... ::clappingoverhead::

Lets address the true elephant in Acts 12:4

Acts 12:4 KJV
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

This was corrected in the NKJV

Acts 12:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four [a]squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Now... just for the fun of it....consider the "fact" that when the original transcripts were written there were no punctuations.

Luke 23:43 KJV has an entirely different meaning if instead of

Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

the comma after thee was moved to after today to read

Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise."

And NKJV  43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
Still has the thief entering into paradise that same day Jesus was crucified... who did not go to paradise that day.



Instead of over the centuries of being taught that Jesus promised the thief he would be with Him in paradise today, the day of crucifixion....

And changes it to Jesus promising on crucifixion day that the thief would be with Him in paradise.

There are always issues with translation and punctuation, thats why comparing to thousands of manuscripts would tend to give a more clearer understanding than just of few Alexandrian with suspect and clearly corrupted text.

Lets look at a few basic comparisons and see what are some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'modern' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

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

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.

The overall purpose needs to looked at, not just few typos or assumptions..

Here is a good explanation on Hort and Westcott I came across:

"Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge– came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were
very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God
would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the Bible was the verbal Word of God.

Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless, today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3

"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our
conception of different recensions and text-types although this
conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research
which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the
end of Westcott and Hort's conception."

Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule...."http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/The_1881_Revision_of_KJB_Which_Version_Is_The_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf

And more on the Alexandrian manucripts:
"Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the "oldest and best" manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this "world's oldest Bible." This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.

Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800's, wrote of these manuscripts, "The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact."1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus's teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.

Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It's history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:

Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, "It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus]."5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!

The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine's is no exception. From the monastery's website:

When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8

This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt!"...https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/ (https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/)

And on the Gnosticism in these versions from the Dean Burgon site:
"Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().

The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text."

http://deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm (http://deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm)

And here is a good overview on the "these are the oldest thus best" idea:

"The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.

From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.

What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....

The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf (http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf)

Here is a review of a text we know very well...

"Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS"

KJB - "Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

ESV (NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions) - "Blessed are those who WASH THEIR ROBES, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."

This verse, as it stands in the King James Bible, is often criticized as teaching a works salvation, and thought to be based on inferior Greek texts. ...

Back to Revelation 22:14 - "they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" versus "those who WASH THEIR ROBES"

Many modern versions that began to appear with the Revised Version of 1885 are based on a very different Greek text than the Traditional Reformation text of the King James Bible. Westcott and Hort formalized textual changes in the New Testament affecting some 5000 words, most of these being omissions; but there also were some additions, and other examples of substitutions.

Westcott and Hort - (Textus Corruptus)
Μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν. = Blessed are those WHO WASH THEIR ROBES

Byzantine (Majority text, Textus Receptus)
Μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν. = Blessed are those WHO DO HIS COMMANDMENTS

Some anti King James Bible critics are so rabid in their hatred of the final authority of God's Book that they go completely over the edge of reason or any form of sound scholarship.

Such a man is Robert Joyner. In his article "Is the KJV Bible Inerrant?" he writes: "Revelation 22:14 teaches salvation by works in the KJV. It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." This is a verse taken from the Latin Vulgate and inserted by Erasmus because he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation. The KJV translators continued this error. THERE IS NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE THAT HAS THE KJV READING. The NASB says, "Blessed are they who have washed their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life."

(Note: So you know I am not making this stuff up, you can see Mr. Joyner's anti KJB rant  here -

http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_kjv%20of%20the%20bible%20infallible_1.html

First of all it should be noted that Mr. Joyner is not even remotely close to being right when he says "There is no Greek manuscript support in existence that has the KJV reading."

The case presented in Revelation 22:14 is one of substitution. The traditional Reformation Bible text read as does the King James Bible - "Blessed are those that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS".

This is the reading found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as some Old Latin copies gig, the Syriac versions (Peshitta, Harclean, and Philoxenian), Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Boharic (3rd to 4th century), and the Armenian ancient versions.

It is also so quoted by several church Fathers, including Tertullian 220, Cryprian 258, Tyconius 380 A.D., Andrew, Beatus and Arethas.  All this information is found in his own UBS Greek New Testament critical text First edition!  Obviously Mr. Joyner has an axe to grind and is nowhere even close to being accurate in his assertions. 

He apparently didn't even bother to look up what his own Critical Greek textbook has to say about the evidence for the variant readings in this verse.

Tertullian (160-221) wrote,"Blessed are they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of ljfe, and over the gates, for entering into the holy city." (On Modesty I: 19:2)

Secondly, the Latin Vulgate editions do NOT read "do his commandments" as Mr. Joyner has affirmed.  Rather, they read just like the modern critical text versions - "wash their robes".

Here is the Latin Vulgate of Jerome 382 A.D. and here is the Clementine Latin Vulgate as well.  They both read "wash their robes" NOT "do his commandments" - "Beati, QUI LAVANT STOLAS SUAS". 

Mr. Joyner's information is completely bogus. You can see the Latin Vulgate here -

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Vulgate/

And here is the Clementine Vulgate -

http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html

"THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" is the reading found in all English translations that were based on the Traditional Reformation Greek texts widely used before the Westcott-Hort texts began to be accepted in the Protestant churches.  It is the text of the Reformation Bibles in all languages.

This includes Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549,  the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " Blessed are they, that doe his commandments", The Beza New Testament 1599 and the 1611 King James Holy Bible.

After 1611 it continued to be the reading in The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, the Newcome N.T. 1796, The Thompson Bible 1808, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T. 1816, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, Webster's 1833 version, Living Oracles 1835, The New Covenant N.T. 1836, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848,  the Etheridge Translation 1849 and Murdock's Translation of the Syriac 1851, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, The Smith Bible 1876, The Dillard N.T. 1885, and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English -  "Blessings to those who ARE DOING his Commandments."

It is also the reading of Youngs literal 1898, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 2000, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Worldwide English New Testament 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Lawrie Translation of 1998, Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003,  the Heritage Bible of 2003, Green's Literal 2005, Robinson-Pierpoint Byzantine Greek New Testament, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostles Bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Majority Text Version of 2009 by Paul Esposito, the Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible of 2010, the Online Linear of 2009 by Andre de Mol, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Far Above All Translation 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible of 2012 - "Blessed are those who do His commandments.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, World English Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Aramaic Plain English Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "Blessed are those who DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." and the New Matthew Bible 2016. 

Foreign Language Bibles

Among foreign language Bibles "Blessed are they that DO his commandments" is the reading found in Luther's German Bible of 1545 - "Selig sind, die seine Gebote halten", the 2000 Schlachter German Bible - "Glückselig sind, die seine Gebote tun",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "die Zijn geboden doen, , the Italian Diodati of 1649, La Nuova Diodati of 1991 -"Beati coloro che mettono in opera i comandamenti d'esso", the Russian Synodal version 1876 and the Russian Victor Zhuromsky both read as does the King James Bible -  "Блаженны те, которые соблюдают заповеди Его".

So too do the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald of 1996. - "Bienheureux sont ceux qui font ses commandements", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera from 1602, 1858, 1909 and the Reina Valera Gomez of 2010, and Spanish Jubilee bible 2010 - "Bienaventurados los que guardan sus mandamientos" (Note: The Spanish Reina Valera's of 1960 and 1995, under the influence of critical text promoters like Eugene Nida , have changed their text and now reads as do the NASB, ESV, NIV.) and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Bem-aventurados aqueles que guardam os seus mandamentos".

It is also the reading in the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Salig is die wat sy gebooie doen" = "Blessed are those who do his commandments", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Boldogok, a kik megtartják az õ parancsolatait,", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Autuaat ovat ne, jotka hänen käskynsä pitävät", the Arabic Smith & VanDyke Bible - "طوبى للذين يصنعون وصاياه لكي يكون سلطانهم على شجرة الحياة",and the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2014 - "Binecuvântaţi sunt cei ce împlinesc poruncile lui"

The Modern Greek Bible - Μακαριοι οι πραττοντες τας εντολας αυτου
and the Modern Hebrew Bible reads the same way as the KJB - "אשרי העשים את מצותיו למען תהיה ממשלתם בעץ החיים ובאו העירה דרך השערים׃"

You can see the Greek New Testament used by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America here -

http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=26&book=Rev&chapter=22"

cont..."The reading found in such versions as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, ISV, Holman Standard, Darby, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and all Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 is quite different.

These versions read: "Blessed are those WHO WASH THEIR ROBES, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city."

Μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

This reading is found in very few Greek manuscripts, the most notable being Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. The entire book of Revelation is missing from the Vaticanus copy, so it is of no help in determining the correct text.

The reading of "those who wash their robes" is also that of the Latin Vulgate 425, and the Old Latin manuscript ar, as well as the Coptic Sahidic, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by Fulgensius.

The Greek evidence for the King James reading of "those that do his commandments" is far more extensive and numerous, but there is also evidence for the reading found in the RSV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, and the ESV.

However the Greek evidence is primarily limited to that of the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus copies, and it should be noted that these two frequently differ from each other and Sinaiticus is notoriously wild in some of its readings.

Sinaiticus gives us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation, none of which are followed by any modern version. For example:

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both these verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

To affirm that Sinaiticus is one of the oldest manuscripts and therefore the best, is to ignore the plain evidence of its many erratic readings and omissions.

Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (the two primary manuscripts from which "they that wash their robes" come from) constantly disagree with each other.

For example, in Revelation 21:3 the words "and be their God" are missing from Sinaiticus, but found in Alexandrinus.

In Revelation 21:1 the word "GOD" in "God shall wipe away all tears" is found in Alexandrinus but omitted by Sinaiticus.

Sinaiticus also omits the words "any more pain" in 21:4, but they are found in Alexandrinus.

In Revelation 21:11 and 12 the words "Having the glory of God" and "at the gates twelve angels" are omitted by Alexandrinus but found in Sinaiticus,

and in Revelation 22:2 Sinaiticus omits "of the nations" in the phrase "for the healing OF THE NATIONS", but they are found in Alexandrinus. This is the true character of these two "oldest and best" manuscripts."... https://brandplucked.webs.com/revelation2214do.htm

: Hobie  Sat Jul 31, 2021 - 07:56:41

Here is a review of a text we know very well...

"Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS"

KJB - "Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

You can see the Greek New Testament used by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America here -

http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=26&book=Rev&chapter=22"

You can post whatever translations you want and why one is your choice over another.

FACT IS: It is all in the translators ability to translate accurately.  And that is neigh to impossible because there are words  that are not translatable into the English we use today. Nor were they ever.  But a proper idea, from an educated linguist can be.

You posted the link above. I do not read Greek at all.... but I do have a Greek/English interlinear which says...

Rev 22:14

Blessed are those doing the commandments of him, that shall be the authority of them over the tree of life and by the gates they may go into the city

https://www.logosapostolic.org/interlinear-nt/revelation/22.htm

When we compare that with KJV

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

They ARE seemingly thee same.  DOES this validate the accuracy of KJV and knock all others out of consideration?

It could be that this specific interlinear translation was wrong ????

The following link has an excellent explanation and does indicate King Jimmy's translation here... would be correct.

http://www.temcat.com/005-Bible-versions/Revelation%2022-14.pdf

The following Webster definitions of the words commandment and command, may reveal the hidden purpose or agenda of the NIV and other modern versions in changing the wording of scripture from using the word commandment, into simply command. I highlighted the main difference between them in the definition of the word commandment. The word commandment is specifically tied to God's Ten Commandments, while the word command is not. 

Definition of commandment
1 : the act or power of commanding
2 : something that is commanded
especially : one of the biblical Ten Commandments

Definition of command (Entry 1 of 3) transitive verb
1 : to direct authoritatively : ORDER commanded adherence to the rules
2 : to exercise a dominating influence over : have command of: such as
a : to have at one's immediate disposal commands many resources
b : to demand or receive as one's due commands a high fee
c : to overlook or dominate from or as if from a strategic position a hill that commands the city
d : to have military command of as senior officer command a regiment
3 obsolete : to order or request to be given intransitive verb
1 : to have or exercise direct authority : GOVERN a leader who knows how to command well
2 : to give orders Rob seldom commanded, but when he did Master Ted had to give in.
— Louisa May Alcott
3 : to be commander The general will command at the western front.
4 : to dominate as if from an elevated place

Definition of command (Entry 2 of 3) command noun
1a : an order given. The command was to hold fire.
b(1) : a signal that actuates a device (such as a control mechanism in a spacecraft or one step in a computer)
(2) : the activation of a device by means of such a signal
(3) : a line of code (see CODE entry 1 sense 5) instructing a computer to send such a signal
2a : the ability to control : MASTERY She was in command of her emotions.
b : the authority or right to command the officer in command
c(1) : the power to dominate The fort has command of the valley.
(2) : scope of vision The tower provides a wide command of the neighboring hills.
d : facility in use a good command of French
e : CONTROL sense 1d a pitcher with good command of his curveball
3 : the act of commanding The troops will charge at command.
4 : the personnel, area, or organization under a commander specifically : a unit of the U.S. Air Force higher than an air force
5 : a position of highest usually military authority He was relieved of his command after being charged with misconduct.

The following are examples of the change between the KJV, and NIV.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.(KJV)

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.(NIV)

1Co 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.(KJV)

1Co 7:17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.(NIV)

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.(KJV)

1Jn 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.(NIV)

1Jn 3:19  And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.(KJV)

1JN 3:19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God's commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.(NIV)

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.(KJV)

1JN 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, (NIV)

Rev 12:17  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.(KJV)

Rev 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.(NIV)

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(KJV)

Rev 14:12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.(NIV)

Rev 22:14  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)

Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.(NIV)

: Amo  Sat Jul 31, 2021 - 14:03:11
The word commandment is specifically tied to God's Ten Commandments, while the word command is not. 

I think you may be drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist.  In the KJV the main difference is between commandment as a noun and command as a verb. When speaking of commandments as distinct from the ten commandments, two different Hebrew words are typically seen, e.g., "mitsvâh" versus "dâbâr".

: 4WD  Sat Jul 31, 2021 - 15:53:06
I think you may be drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist.  In the KJV the main difference is between commandment as a noun and command as a verb. When speaking of commandments as distinct from the ten commandments, two different Hebrew words are typically seen, e.g., "mitsvâh" versus "dâbâr".

I did say may reveal a reason for the distinction. I do not know those who made the translations, and of course cannot judge the intent of their hearts. On the other hand, I do know that many professed Christians today, argue as it were against the keeping of God's commandments. The fourth in particular of course, and others as well, even teaching that such is no longer necessary. Many also wish to clump all of God's commands into one heap, that all may be done away with as scripture states regarding some, but not others. It is not therefore, too far of a stretch to imagine that some of these would prefer to remove the word commandment from scripture, as the NIV does many times over in its translation. Or blur the distinction between the Ten Commandments spoken to humanity by the mouth of God Himself, and written with His own finger in stone twice, from the others He allowed to be written and spoken through fallen humanity itself.

As a matter of general information, the KJV uses the word commandments 168 times, 30 times in the New Testament. While the NIV only uses it 22 times, and only six times in the New Testament. KJV uses the word commandment 333 times, 82 times in the New Testament. While the NIV only uses it 35 times, 18 times in the New Testament.

Apart from the above, the Webster dictionary itself made the distinction I pointed out, not just me.

I think comparing to see what are mistakes versus changes can show who was purposely distorting the text.

: 4WD  Sat Jul 31, 2021 - 15:53:06When speaking of commandments as distinct from the ten commandments, two different Hebrew words are typically seen, e.g., "mitsvâh" versus "dâbâr".

The Hebrew Davar (rendered dabar in christian transliteration) means only "word."  So the "Ten Commandments" in Hebrew is the "Ten Words."

: Hobie  Mon Nov 04, 2019 - 10:57:57The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

If the KJV is so accurate, why could they not even properly render the names of John's brother and the brother of the Lord?  Both are called Iakobos in the Greek, or Jacob in English.  NOT "James." 

: current occupant2  Wed Nov 06, 2019 - 11:08:09And you failed to mention the inappropriate placement of the comma in Matthew 5:17.

However they did get the comma placement correct in Luke 23:43

In the original, there were no commas, or any other punctuation.  There were many places where they did not even leave spaces between words or sentences. 

"Proper comma placement" is a non-issue. All punctuation in our translations is mere commentary.

: current occupant2  Wed Nov 06, 2019 - 11:08:09And you failed to mention the inappropriate placement of the comma in Matthew 5:17.

However they did get the comma placement correct in Luke 23:43

Please prove what you are saying~why is not the comma correct in Matthew 5:17?

Matthew 5:17~"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Perfectly stated with comma's in the proper place.

The issue is what does "fulfill" mean there. I contend it means to fill full that which has been emptied. Jesus was correcting what the Jewish religious leaders had done to the law. "You have heard it said...................., but I say to you......." the theme of the entire Sermon on the Mount. Pointing oit the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

From Strongs:

πληρόω (plēroō) 'to fulfill' (G4137)
(Verb Aorist Active Infinitive )

This word occurs about 98 x 
Meaning

to fulfill, make full; (passive) to be filled, full, complete (often used with reference to the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures)
pluperf., πεπληρώκει (3 singular), to fill, make full, fill up, Mt. 13:48; 23:32; Lk. 3:5; to fill up a deficiency, Phil. 4:18, 19; to pervade, Jn. 12:3; Acts 2:2; to pervade with an influence, to influence fully, possess fully, Jn. 16:6; Acts 2:28; 5:3; Rom. 1:29; Eph. 5:18; to complete, perfect, Jn. 3:29; Eph. 3:19; to bring to an end, Lk. 7:1; to perform fully, discharge, Mt. 3:15; Acts 12:25; 13:25; 14:26; Rom. 13:8; Col. 4:17; to consummate, Mt. 5:17; to realize, accomplish, fulfil, Lk. 1:20; 9:31; Acts 3:18; 13:27; from the Hebrew; to set forth fully, Rom. 15:19; Col. 1:25; passive of time, to be fulfilled, come to an end, be fully arrived, Mk. 1:15; Lk. 21:24; Jn. 7:8; of prophecy, to receive fulfillment, Mt. 1:22, and frequently

: Jaime  Wed Jan 10, 2024 - 07:16:20The issue is what does "fulfill" mean there. I contend it means to fill full that which has been emptied. Jesus was correcting what the Jewish religious leaders had done to the law. "You have heard it said...................., but I say to you......." the theme of the entire Sermon on the Mount. Pointing oit the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

From Strongs:

πληρόω (plēroō) 'to fulfill' (G4137)
(Verb Aorist Active Infinitive )

This word occurs about 98 x 
Meaning

to fulfill, make full; (passive) to be filled, full, complete (often used with reference to the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures)
pluperf., πεπληρώκει (3 singular), to fill, make full, fill up, Mt. 13:48; 23:32; Lk. 3:5; to fill up a deficiency, Phil. 4:18, 19; to pervade, Jn. 12:3; Acts 2:2; to pervade with an influence, to influence fully, possess fully, Jn. 16:6; Acts 2:28; 5:3; Rom. 1:29; Eph. 5:18; to complete, perfect, Jn. 3:29; Eph. 3:19; to bring to an end, Lk. 7:1; to perform fully, discharge, Mt. 3:15; Acts 12:25; 13:25; 14:26; Rom. 13:8; Col. 4:17; to consummate, Mt. 5:17; to realize, accomplish, fulfil, Lk. 1:20; 9:31; Acts 3:18; 13:27; from the Hebrew; to set forth fully, Rom. 15:19; Col. 1:25; passive of time, to be fulfilled, come to an end, be fully arrived, Mk. 1:15; Lk. 21:24; Jn. 7:8; of prophecy, to receive fulfillment, Mt. 1:22, and frequently

They couldn't keep the law as written.  They sure couldn't keep even the Spirit of the Law.  Got to be more than "fill full."  Through the law comes the knowledge of our sin. 

Jesus raised the bar in the Law. It was not  just wrong to murder it was wrong to harbor anger in our hearts. It was not just wrong to commit the act of adultery, Jesus said it was wrong to lust in your heart. The Pharisees were big on  the letter of the Law, Jesus said no, he was filling full the Law to include the spirit of the Law as God intended. That was the context of the entire sermon on the mount in Mathew Chapter 5. The pharisees had emptied the Law by their man made traditions. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law or  fill it back up with what the Pharisees had emptied it of. As the Stong's definition of fulfill indicates. The manmade additions to the law or the "Takkanot" was what the people could not keep.

To me, this is why Jesus said his yoke or his interpretation of Torah was easy and his burden was light. The pharisee's burden was difficult and hard BECAUSE of their manmade additions.

God's Torah as originally intended by God was NOT undoable per Deuteronomy 30.

30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach

It wasn't that they COULDN'T, they simply WOULDN'T. Big difference. God didn't give them commands that couldn't be obeyed. I DO  believe the Pharisees version of the law was too burdensome. Jesus's yoke or  interpretation of God's law was easy and  not burdensome, at least according to Jesus.

https://shatteredbythegospel.com/2015/09/07/a-rabbis-yoke/ (https://shatteredbythegospel.com/2015/09/07/a-rabbis-yoke/)

: Jaime  Wed Jan 10, 2024 - 18:05:30Jesus raised the bar in the Law. It was not  just wrong to murder it was wrong to harbor anger in our hearts. It was not just wrong to commit the act of adultery, Jesus said it was wrong to lust in your heart. The Pharisees were big on  the letter of the Law, Jesus said no, he was filling full the Law to include the spirit of the Law as God intended. That was the context of the entire sermon on the mount in Mathew Chapter 5. The pharisees had emptied the Law by their man made traditions. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law or  fill it back up with what the Pharisees had emptied it of. As the Stong's definition of fulfill indicates. The manmade additions to the law or the "Takkanot" was what the people could not keep.

To me, this is why Jesus said his yoke or his interpretation of Torah was easy and his burden was light. The pharisee's burden was difficult and hard BECAUSE of their manmade additions.

God's Torah as originally intended by God was NOT undoable per Deuteronomy 30.

It wasn't that they COULDN'T, they simply WOULDN'T. Big difference. God didn't give them commands that couldn't be obeyed. I DO  believe the Pharisees version of the law was too burdensome. Jesus's yoke or  interpretation of God's law was easy and  not burdensome, at least according to Jesus.

Yep.

The Torah seeks to establish a kingdom through every man enforcing rules against one another.  An eye for an eye.

Jesus turns that on its head - ever man is responsible for enforcing the rules only upon himself.  And the kingdom establishes itself as a natural consequence.

-Jarrod

In my opinion the Pharisee's interpretation of God's Law or specifically the ORAL TORAH (traditions of men Jesus warned of) did what you speak of. They built fences around fences in order to complicate the Law, but mainly making THEM the arbitors and keepers of the Law. Ironically the Saducees did not hold to the Oral Torah, but only the WRITTEN Torah.

By Jesus's time the Pharisee had indeed corrupted the Law into something God didn't intend originally. Hence Jesus's  easy yoke restoring the Law into what God intended. Which ironically, He didn't come to abolish the Law, He filled backup what the Pharisees had corrupted or emptied.

: current occupant2  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 11:56:13So RICHARD, you tell us by your statement above that you are not even concerned that the KJV might have some errors nor are you concerned that it does have errors. 

You have just admitted your own confirmation bias and nullified your opinions in front of the audience you seek to influence. 

Anything man touches is not perfect, that is only God, but He guides and reveals unto man..

: Hobie  Mon Nov 04, 2019 - 10:57:57The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

 The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

This is an old thread, but one that needs be renewed for corrections.

I have cut off the the change comparisons as the copy from the link I am about to post is long and deserves the proper attention.

@Hobie , you said "The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth.

This is wrong and I encourage you, as well as others, to read slowly, carefully and digest the following.

Any boldings or color changes are mine for emphasis.


https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2011/01/19/a-short-history-of-the-textus-receptus/

A Short History of the Textus Receptus
Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Textual Criticism, Theology
 
Many people are under the impression that the Textus Receptus (TR) printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society was the Greek text used by the KJV translators to translate the NT.  Not so.[/color] 

The TR was not the Greek text used by the KJV translators. Instead, it is a Greek text based on the KJV, created 270 years after the KJV was published!  To understand why, let's explore the history of the TR in a little detail.

The story begins in 16th century Europe.  Catholicism was the religion of Europe, and Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the Bible of the church—and had been for over 500 years.[1] In 1504, however, the Catholic humanist scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus came across a manuscript by the Italian humanist Lorena Valla (1407-57)—an event that would forever change Erasmus' life, as well as the future of Bible translations.

Valla's manuscript contained a host of annotations to the Vulgate, noting those places where it was not faithful to the Greek text.  Erasmus became enamored with Valla's approach, and determined to carry on his work.

In 1516 Erasmus published his Novum Instrumentum.[2] This work was nearly 1000 pages in length.[3] It contained several articles regarding the work, Erasmus' annotations on the Vulgate, a Greek text, and Erasmus' own Latin translation.  It might be more accurate to call it an emendation of the Vulgate rather than a new Latin translation since Erasmus used the Vulgate as his base text, correcting it wherever he thought it departed from the Greek text.  Even in its final 1535 form (5th edition), it was still ~60% identical to the Vulgate.[4]

Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum is historically significant because it challenged the Vulgate translation, and it contained the first published Greek text. 

I emphasize that it was the first published Greek text because the distinction of the first printed Greek text belongs to the bishop of Toledo, Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros, and his mammoth work: the Polyglotta Complutensis.[5] It was printed on January 10, 1514, nearly two years before Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum, but was awaiting papal approval.[6] Pope Leo X did not give his permission to publish it until 1520—approximately four years after Erasmus published his Greek text—and even then Complutensis did not hit the streets until 1522, approximately five years after Cardinal Ximenes had died.[7] Due to its size (6 volumes) and its late arrival in the market, only 600 copies were ever produced.  Contrast this to Erasmus' work which sold approximately 300,000 copies in 20 years![8]

Erasmus prepared his manuscript in approximately eight months.  By his own admission he was rushed.  He said it was "hurried out headlong," and "precipitated rather than edited."  It is popularly believed that Erasmus was working feverishly on the project because he wanted to beat Cardinal Ximenes to market with the very first published Greek text.  While this may have been the motive of Erasmus' printer who encouraged him to publish a Greek text in his Instrumentum, there is no good reason to believe Erasmus was similarly motivated.  His interest was not in publishing a Greek text, but in publishing his annotations to the Vulgate. A Greek text was included merely to justify his own Latin translation against the Vulgate. 

The evidence we have seems to indicate that Erasmus was prodded by Froben et al to substitute a new Latin translation for the Vulgate, and to include the Greek text.[9] In the introduction to the Instrumentum Erasmus wrote that the "Greek text has been 'added' so that the reader can convince himself that the Latin translation does not contain any rash innovations, but is solidly based."  As Erika Rummel writes:

The theory that Erasmus had begun work on a translation before 1506 was, however, at odds with his own testimony, for he consistently claimed that the idea of adding a translation to his New Testament edition occurred to him only when the project was already well advanced. In polemics against Edward Lee, Johannes Sutor, and Frans Titelmans, Erasmus declared that the plan was conceived by friends when the publication was already in progress. He claimed that it had not been his own intention to add a new translation—scholarly friends had urged him to do so—and insisted that nothing had been further from his mind at first. He described the circumstances surrounding the publication of the translation in similar terms in a letter to Budé: "When the work was already due to be published, certain people encouraged me to change the Vulgate text' (Ep 421:50–2). In 1533 he repeated this version of events: "When I had first come to Basel I had not even thought about translating the New Testament—I had merely noted down some brief explanatory notes and had decided to be content with that" (Allen Ep 2758:12–14).[10]

Evidence that Erasmus' interest in the Greek text was only secondary to his interest in his Latin translation is found in the fact that title of his work never advertised the Greek text,[11] he never consented to publish the Greek text by itself, and he arrived in Basle, Switzerland without any Greek manuscripts with which to produce a Greek text.[12]

(my note: I find the following to be interesting)

It's not entirely certain which Greek manuscripts Erasmus used to produce his Greek text.  He had as many as 10 manuscripts: six of these manuscripts were from the Dominican Library in Basle, dated between the 11th and 15th centuries (one 11th century text, four 12th century texts, and one 15th century text).[13] Erasmus' friend, John Reuchlin, had borrowed two of these manuscripts, who lent them to Erasmus in turn.[14] One was borrowed from the family of Johann Amerbach in Basel,[15] and at least three others were from England.  One of Reuchlin's manuscripts, Codex 1rk, was the best of the bunch, but Erasmus did not trust it, and thus only used its text of Revelation (he was forced to since he had no other manuscript of Revelation).[16]

(my note: He had no other manuscript of Revelation?????)

We have been able to ascertain that Erasmus had access to at least the following manuscripts (key: e=Gospels; a=Acts and Catholic letters; p=Pauline letters, including Hebrews; r=Revelation:

Codex 1eap (12th century minuscule manuscript containing all of the NT except Revelation that Erasmus borrowed from Reuchlin)

Codex 1rK (12th century minuscule commentary Erasmus borrowed from Reuchlin, containing all of the book of Revelation except for the last six verses)

( my note: except for the last 6 verses )

Codex 2e (12th century minuscule containing the gospels)

Codex 2ap (12th century minuscule containing Acts, Catholic epistles, and Pauline epistles, borrowed by Erasmus from Johann Amerbach in Basel)

Codex 4ap (15th century minuscule containing Acts, Catholic epistles, and Pauline epistles)

Codex 7 (11th century minuscule containing the epistles of Paul)

Codex 817 (15th century minuscule containing the gospels).

We also know from Erasmus' annotations that he had knowledge of Codex 69 (15th century manuscript of the entire NT with some lacunae[17]), and used certain readings from this manuscript in his text (probably from notes he had taken on this manuscript prior to his arrival in Basel), but he did not have access to the full manuscript in Basel.[18]

In all, Erasmus only had three manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts, four manuscripts of Paul's epistles, and one manuscript of Revelation to produce his Greek text.[19],[20]

Erasmus used Codex 2e and 2ap extensively.  In fact, they served as his base text.  He made text-critical notes directly onto these codices, and then gave these edited codices to Froben for publishing (Froben did not incorporate all of Erasmus' edits)![21]

Since the Greek text for Revelation was contained within a commentary, and because it was a borrowed manuscript, Erasmus had a scribe copy the Greek text into a new manuscript for the printer. 

The scribe made several copyist mistakes in the process that still appear in the Textus Receptus. 

For example, in Revelation 17:4 the scribe wrote ajkaqavrthto instead of ajkavqarta ("impure").  This is not even a Greek word!  In Revelation 17:8 kai parevstai ("and is to come") was copied as kaivper estin ("and yet is").[22] These errors are still found in the TR to this day!

(my note: "In Revelation 17:8 kai parevstai ("and is to come") was copied as kaivper estin ("and yet is") is also
in KJV... 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.)

The most egregious errors are found in Revelation 22:16-21 because Erasmus had no Greek text for this passage.  The lone manuscript Erasmus borrowed for Revelation was missing the last leaf which contained these verses.  While he was able to find 22:20 in Lorenzo Valla's Notes on the New Testament, he had no Greek text for the other five verses.[23] To get around this problem Erasmus back-translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek.[24] This introduced a spate of textual variants not found in any extant Greek manuscript. 

For example, the following words appear in Erasmus' text of 22:16-21 that do not appear anywhere else in the manuscript tradition: "orthrinos at Revelation 22:16, elthe twice in verse 17 (its actually erchou), eltheto for erckestho in the same verse, suntusrturoumai gar for martnro and epitithe pros tauta for epithe ep auta in verse 18 and so on."[25] In 1522 Erasmus obtained a copy of Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian Diaglott, and utilized his text of Revelation to make corrections to the fourth edition (1527) of his own text.[26] Erasmus made 90 changes in Revelation alone.[27]

In 1519 Erasmus issued a second edition, changing the title to the more familiar Novum Testamentum, increasing the number of annotations to nearly double that of the first edition, and including a response to critics of his first edition (with the great title of "Summary Arguments Against Certain Contentious and Boorish People").[28] Given the number of errors in the first edition, one would have expected extensive text changes to appear in the first revision, but Erasmus only made approximately 400 changes.  This was followed by three other editions—1522[29], 1527, and 1535[30],[31]—for a total of five editions.  John Mill estimated that there were 118 changes between the 2nd and 3rd editions,[32] 113 changes between the 3rd and 4th, and only five changes between the 4th and 5th (though Frederic Scrivener thought these were underestimates).[33]

Robert Estienne, a Parisian printer known as "Stephanus" (1503-1559) possibly used Erasmus' 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions[34] as the basis for four more editions of the Greek text: 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551.[35],[36] Stephanus used the Polyglotta Complutensis as well as 15 Greek manuscripts to edit Erasmus' text, including D, Codex Reginus, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 2817.[37],[38] John Mill estimated that Stephanus' 2nd edition differed in 67 places from the 1st, and the 3rd edition differed in 284 places from the 2nd.[39] His 3rd edition contained various readings in the margin, and hence was the first published Greek text with a critical apparatus.[40],[41] The 3rd and 4th editions differ only in the fact that the 4th edition added verse divisions.[42] It also contained the Vulgate, Erasmus' Latin translation.[43]

Theodore Beza (1519-1605) used Stephanus' 3rd edition to publish nine more editions: two in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1582, 1588, 1590, 1598, and 1604.  Only four of these were independent editions.  The rest were smaller sized reprints.[44]

Sidenote: The name "Textual Receptus" is a Latin phrase created as an advertising blurb by Daniel Heinsius[45] in the Elzevir's (Bonaventure and his nephew[46] Abraham[47]) 1633 printed edition of Beza's first edition Greek text.

Here is where the story of the KJV and the TR comes into view.  The KJV translators did not use a single Greek text for their translation, but multiple.  Their primary textual sources were Beza's 1598 edition and Stephanus' 1550 edition.  While these editions were very similar, they differed from one another.  If the KJV translators used multiple Greek texts, and none of them was identical to the modern TR, then where did the modern TR come from?

The TR as we know it today is the work of Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener in 1881.[48] Scrivener was aware that the KJV translators had 7 different printed versions of the Greek NT at their disposal: the 5 editions of Erasmus, the 1550 Stephanus edition, and the 1598 Beza edition. Where these texts differed, the KJV translators had to make a choice as to which reading they would translate. In effect, they produced a new, eclectic Greek text, but never committed that text to writing.  Which readings did they choose to translate?  To identify the translators' textual choices Scrivener identified every place in which the seven Greek texts differed from one another, and then compared those textual options to the KJV.  Whatever Greek reading most closely matched the KJV translation Scrivener included in his Greek text (he found that they relied most heavily on Beza's 1598 version.[49]).[50] When all was said and done, Scrivener had produced a new Greek text based on the KJV that reflected the translators' eclectic text—270 years after the KJV was translated.  This means the modern TR an English-based Greek text, reverse-engineered from the KJV!

This is not good news for TR/KJV-only advocates who hold up the TR as the ideal/standard text and dismiss other Greek texts (such as the Nestle-Aland Greek text) on the basis that they are eclectic.  The kettle is calling the pot black.  Not only were the seven Greek texts used by the KJV translators eclectic texts, but the KJV translators themselves used an eclectic approach to determine which Greek words they would translate. There is not a single Greek manuscript or published Greek text prior to the creation of the KJV that contains the precise Greek words the KJV translators translated.  Textual criticism and eclecticism is present at every level.  It is unavoidable.  The question is not whether textual criticism and eclecticism is a valid way of determining the original text of the NT, but how best to apply these methods to accomplish that goal.

[1]The Latin Vulgate was not made the official Bible of the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546, but it had been the functional equivalent of the official Bible for centuries.
[2]Erasmus produced his text in about eight months between late A.D. 1514 and early 1515.  He later admitted that it was rushed.  It went to the printer in August 1515, and was completed by March 1516.
[3]It contained a preface from the publisher (1 page), Erasmus' dedication to Pope Leo X (3 pages), an introduction (23 pages); a parallel Greek text and Latin translation (548 pages), and Erasmus' annotations (401 pages).  See Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[4]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[5]"Complutum" is Latin for Alcala, the place of publication.
[6]The OT was completed in 1518.  Bart Ehrman, however, says the entire work was completed by 1517.  See Misquoting Jesus, page 77.
[7]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[8]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[9]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[10]Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 20–21, as quoted in William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[11]The full title was Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum, which refers to an "improved and revised" New Testament.  Since there was no published Greek text in circulation prior to Erasmus' that could be improved or revised, surely Erasmus is referring to the Latin Vulgate that has been revised and improved.  He makes this clear in his dedication to Pope Leo X: "I perceived that that teaching which is our salvation was to be had in a much purer and more lively form if sought at the fountain-head and drawn from the actual sources than from pools and runnels. And so I have revised the whole New Testament (as they call it) against the standard of the Greek original....I have added annotations of my own, in order in the first place to show the reader what changes I have made, and why; second, to disentangle and explain anything that may be complicated, ambiguous, or obscure."
[12]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.  Combs quotes a letter from Beatus Rhenanus, an employee of Froben, in which he describes the books Erasmus brought with him to Basel: "Erasmus of Rotterdam, a great scholar, has arrived in Basel most  recently, weighed down with good books, among which are the following: Jerome revised, the complete works of Seneca revised, copious notes on the New Testament, a book of similes, a large number of translations from Plutarch, the Adages...."  He makes no mention of any Greek or Latin manuscripts, or even a manuscript of Erasmus' Latin translation.  All of this points to the fact that Erasmus did not intend to publish either a Greek text or a new Latin translation prior to his arrival in Basel.
[13]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[14]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[15]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[16]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[17]It is missing Mt 1:1-18:15; Acts 10:45-14:17; Jude 7-25; Rev 19:10-22:21.  The lacunae in Acts is unique because it is not due to a missing page or damaged parchment/paper.  The scribe simply omitted the entire section.  See Wikipedia, "Minuscule 69"; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_69; Internet; accessed 16 November 2010.
[18]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[19]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[20]In his second edition (1519) Erasmus also used Codex 3, a 12th century manuscript containing the entire NT except Revelation.  See Wapedia, "Textus Receptus"; available from http://wapedia.mobi/en/Textus_Receptus; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010, and William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[21]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[22]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[23]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[24]See Thomas Holland's Crowned with Glory for a rebuttal to the idea that Erasmus back-translated from the Latin.  An excerpt is available from http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.html: "Revelation 22:19—'book of life' and the last six verses of Revelation 22."
[25]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[26]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[27]Doug Kutilek, "Erasmus, His Greek Text and Theology"; available from http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[28]Martin Luther used Erasmus' 2nd edition to translate the NT into German (1522).
[29]William Tyndale used Erasmus' 3rd edition as the basis for his English translation.
[30]James White, "Erasmus of Rotterdam: His New Testament and Its Importance"; available from http://vintage.aomin.org/erasmus.html; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[31]The 4th edition added a third column for the Latin Vulgate text, appearing beside the Greek text and Erasmus' own Latin translation.  The Vulgate was removed from the 5th edition.  See Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[32]One of the most famous changes was the addition of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8) to the text.
[33]Doug Kutilek, "Erasmus, His Greek Text and Theology"; available from http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm; Internet; accessed 05 November 2010.
[34]Most sources I have encountered do not specify which edition(s) of Erasmus' Greek text Stephanus used, but of those who do, the information is inconsistent.  Some say he used Erasmus' 4th and 5th editions.  Others, such as Wikipedia, say he used the 3rd edition.  I am inclined to think it was the 3rd edition since Erasmus fixed the last six verses of Revelation in his 4th edition, and yet that fix does not appear in Stephanus' editions.  Some seem to indicate that Stephanus only used the 4th and 5th editions for his 1550 edition.  If so, then perhaps he used Erasmus' 3rd edition for his 1546 and 1549 editions, and then consulted Erasmus' 4th and 5th editions for his 1550 text.
[35]Also contains Erasmus' Latin translation and the Vulgate.
[36]While not usually mentioned, there were other men creating Greek texts based on Erasmus' work.  For example, the texts created by Aldus in 1518 and Colinaeus in 1534.
[37]"Textus Receptus"; available from http://wapedia.mobi/en/Textus_Receptus; Internet; accessed 10 November 2010.
[38]Stephanus himself did not identify the manuscripts other than to say that one was from Italy (what we now know to be D, i.e. Codex Bezae), eight from the Royal Library in London, and six from private libraries.  See Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[39]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[40]Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[41]The translators of the Geneva Bible used Stephanus' 3rd edition as the textual basis for their NT translation.  See Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[42]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[43]Wapedia, "Textus Receptus"; available from http://wapedia.mobi/en/Textus_Receptus; Internet; accessed 10 November 2010.
[44]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[45]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[46]Michael D. Marlowe, "Erasmus, 1516"; available from http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html; Internet; accessed 04 November 2010.
[47]Most sources describe these two as brothers, but they are not.  Louis Elsevier started the business in 1583.  His five sons, Matthieu, Louis, Gilles, Joost and Bonaventure took up his trade.  Abraham is the son of Matthieu.  Isaac was another son of Matthieu.  He is the one who created the first published Greek NT in 1624.  See Wikipedia, "House of Elzevir"; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Elzevir; Internet; accessed 06 November 2010.
[48]Theopedia, "Textus Receptus"; available from http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus; Internet; accessed 06 November 2010.
[49]William W. Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35-53; available from http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf; Internet; accessed 30 October 2010.
[50]Except for places where the KJV translators had no Greek basis, but instead relied on the Vulgate—in those circumstances Scrivener chose the closest Greek rendering.

: Hobie  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 16:22:33Then the doctrine of the GodHead:

Acts 17:29 King James Version (KJV)
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
 
Romans 1:20 King James Version (KJV)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The NIV removes the critically important word �Godhead� from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9.

Acts 17:29  (New International Version, )
29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

Romans 1:20  (New International Version, )
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Colossians 2:9  (New International Version, )
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,


Those are the only 3 mentions of the Word in the Bible; yet, they have all been removed. Then we have the following:

John 1:3 (New International Version, )
 "3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

 Now here is what the King James Bible says...

John 1:3, �All things were made BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.�

 1st John 5:7 in the NIV reads...

1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
 "7 For there are three that testify"

 Here is what King James Bible reads...

 1st John 5:7, �For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.�

 Subtly this is a change affecting the deity of Jesus Christ.

 We find it again in NIV in Colossians 1:16...

Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)
 "16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

 Now here is what the King James Bible says...

 Colossians 1:16, �For BY HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.�

 The King James Bible says that �by Him,� that is, by Jesus Christ, were all things created. The Scriptures attribute creation directly to the Lord Jesus Christ

 The NIV doesn't miss the point again in John 1:10...

John 1:10 (New International Version, ©2011)

 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

 Here is what the faithful King James Bible reads...

John 1:10, �He was in the world, and the world was MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not.�

 Satan knows that if he can change each new version of the Bible just a little bit, then it won't be too long before all truth is gone.

Hobbie, SDA's believe in the Mormon Godhead and categorically reject the Trinity. You know this.

: Rella  Sat Jul 31, 2021 - 08:48:25You can post whatever translations you want and why one is your choice over another.

FACT IS: It is all in the translators ability to translate accurately.  And that is neigh to impossible because there are words  that are not translatable into the English we use today. Nor were they ever.  But a proper idea, from an educated linguist can be.

You posted the link above. I do not read Greek at all.... but I do have a Greek/English interlinear which says...

Rev 22:14

Blessed are those doing the commandments of him, that shall be the authority of them over the tree of life and by the gates they may go into the city

https://www.logosapostolic.org/interlinear-nt/revelation/22.htm

When we compare that with KJV

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

They ARE seemingly thee same.  DOES this validate the accuracy of KJV and knock all others out of consideration?

It could be that this specific interlinear translation was wrong ????

The following link has an excellent explanation and does indicate King Jimmy's translation here... would be correct.

http://www.temcat.com/005-Bible-versions/Revelation%2022-14.pdf

The thing is, if you translate with honesty and integrity  the words and meaning,  there is no issue. But when your purpose is to shade or distort God's Word, then there is a problem...