That made me smile.

I'm at a loss to know where to begin....

Was the KJV edited?

I hate to rain on your the "Comma in Luke 23" parade*, but regarding said point, the translators (SDA and JW excepted, as Johann has correctly pointed out) got it right. In every case where Jesus uses the phrase "I say unto you...", this is followed by what he has to say. He never uses the phrase "I say unto you today..." and then says what he has to say.

*Actually, it dosen't bother me at all.

** This post is not directed at Johann, who has a very rational approach to Scripture, but rather is a generic response to the "Comma in Luke 23" argument.

Doesn't bother me at all either. Then again, I tend to think somewhat abstractly. As far as the malefactor was concerned "today", however far in the future, was (will be) immediate the moment he died. Like talking to the anesthesiologist one second and and seeing your PACU nurse the next and wondering when your surgery is going to start.

As to Greens latest post, I contacted the Andrews University Press some time ago and asked if they would ever consider producing an Andrews Study Bible in the NASB since I liked my NKVJ one so much. They told me that though they didn't have plans in place yet for one in the NASB, they were already planning on one in the NIV. It would be far better to look at different renderings as an opportunity to view our teachings from different perspectives.

In a few places, yes, unfortunately. The sixth commandment is one of those. This is why going back to the original language is frequently important in Bible study. But the modern versions pale in comparison to the relative purity of the KJV.

Basically, there is no perfect version. But some are more perfect than others. In general, any Bible translated from the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts, such as the Waldensian Bibles were, is far superior to those Bibles coming from the Catholic-edited manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fittingly, the TR line represents about 95% of all the extant manuscripts, and to me this seems appropriate in light of God's promise to preserve His Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well think about it, how did they come about deciding Canon, what makes one manuscript holy and the other not. The Holy Spirit shows them, the same for understanding, the same guiding to all truth. Man cannot write or teach anything that will be perfectly from God, it is the Holy Spirit that shows the perfect will of God, always has been....

I have a notion that a considerable section of hell will be for those who will not accept anything unless they have been satisfied that they have understood the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To them life is made up of "either" "or". The Holy Spirit will not be able to satisfy them that God is revealing a part of His glory to them and they will not receive any more unless they have accepted what has been given to them.

Maybe, maybe not.

But notions aside, the Bible tells us in God's own copyright of the book exactly what portion will those receive who have tampered with His Word.


If God is so particular about adding or subtracting words from the Bible, it stands to reason that such additions or subtractions will result in the loss of souls. When one realizes the infinite worth of one soul, and realizes that a few edited words of the Bible might cause the loss of that soul, one becomes a righteous defender of maintaining purity of God's Word.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But how do you know it's wrong? You can't say any version not from the Textus Receptus is wrong, because you just admitted that in a few places, even it is wrong. So how do you know it is wrong? Do we just take your word that it is wrong?

I'm a stickler for Biblical wording being correct and pure, without edits. It's important for understanding the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Your post here is a perfect example of what can happen when someone is careless with the wording. You have twisted what I said to say something that is no longer true. You probably didn't realize that you were doing that. But the shift from "KJV" to "Textus Receptus" between your two posts just made all the difference in the world.

In other words, I did no such thing as "admit" that the TR is wrong in a few places. Now, I might choose to make such an admission, but for you to say that I have is incorrect. I addressed the KJV, not the TR, in that post.

Now, why should I make such a big deal out of this? Because it is crucial to understanding the answer that I will now give to your next question of "how do you know it is wrong?"

I know the KJV is wrong by going back to the Textus Receptus' original Hebrew, and looking at the word used and how it is translated in other places within the same version. In other words, the sixth commandment is one example of a translation in the KJV which conflicts with the rest of the KJV translation.



Notice how the word is used in other places? Why is it that the only verses where Hebrew 7523 is translated as "kill" are the two statements of the sixth commandment? Verses which say "kill" all use a different Hebrew word, except for those two commandments. All of the verses using the word God chose for the commandment are translated in other places as some form of "murder," "slay," "manslayer," etc., which is hardly the same as "kill."

If "kill" = "murder" then we have a BIG problem. The problem would be that God has told us we must not kill, and then at the same time has commanded it. This would mean that God has commanded us to sin. Don't you think that would be a big problem? Do I even need to read Greek and Hebrew to understand that? So when I see that the sixth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill," and then I see something like "thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them" (Lev. 20:16), I know that there is an error in the translation, because I have faith that God does not lie, and in Him is no error at all.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Some people spend their lives in the shadow of the valley of death, finding the importance of defining the verbal variations in the expressions describing the process of death. Others find their way into the light of Jesus Christ and His Gospel of eternal life. Do we get the idea that the light described to vividly by the Apostle John in His epistle becomes any brighter by discovering false translations from the Hebrew or Greek terms of the process of death?

Who created death? Was it done by God the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost? Or was it initiated by Satan?

Who is the only source of immortality - eternal life?