Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Faber

KJVOnly: Words deleted?

Recommended Posts

 This is addressed to any staunch KJVOnlyist that insist the new versions delete important words from the Bible to demean God and/or show disrespect to the Person of Christ. Please read and answer each question I have below from the following verses.

 

John 14:14
NASB: If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
KJV: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Question: Why is the "Me" removed from the KJV when it is a powerful evidence for the fact that the Lord Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer?

 

Acts 24:24

NASB: But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

KJV: And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

Question: Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

Romans 8:11

NASB: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

KJV: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Question: Why is the second usage of "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

Romans 11:22

NASB: Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

KJV: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Question: Why is "God's" removed from the KJV?

 

1 Corinthians 1:29

NASB: so that no man may boast before God.

KJV: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Question: Why is "God" removed and replaced with a "his" instead?

 

1 Corinthians 6:11

NASB: Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

KJV: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Question: Why is "Christ" removed from the KJV?

 

Ephesians 3:6

NASB: to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

KJV: That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.

Question:  Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

James 4:12
NASB: There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
KJV: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Question: Why is "Judge" removed from the KJV?

 

1 Peter 3:15

NASB: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

KJV: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Question: Since we already have a passage about sanctifying the name of the Father as it relates to worship elsewhere (cf. Matthew 6:9), why is "Christ" removed from the KJV since this demonstrates that He, being God, is the proper recipient of worship?

 

Revelation 3:2

NASB: Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 

KJV: Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

Question: Why is "My" removed from the KJV?

 

Revelation 4:11

NASB: Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.

KJV: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Question: Why is "God" removed from the KJV?

 

Revelation 14:1

NASB: Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.
KJV: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Question: Why is "His name" (in reference to the Son) removed from the KJV?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up with the KJV, still read it first, then compare with some other versions. Then it's over to the Strongs if greater clarification is desired. Plus it is free from copyright in the US.

It seemed difficult in my youth, now it's an old friend.

 

I've come to realize that the good news for salvation can be reduced to one small letter. Mans litigious mind and desire to create a little wiggle room and latitude regarding sin and guilt required further clarification. The truth is simple, Love your neighbor as yourself. Love God.

Then man hedges:

Is it really sex if we don’t engage in coitus?

But, I intended to return it.

It was just one bite.

Who is my neighbor?

Sure I’ll follow you, just let me go and finish this other thing up.

But I was born in the wrong body.

It was just a little lie.

God made us with certain needs, I’m sure He’ll understand.

 

We are to study to show ourselves approved. If our hearts desire is to live closer to God we don’t make excuses, our responses are correct, our worship is with a clear conscience.

I’ve also found that the truth alone won’t save everyone. It’s our presentation, our life, our light, our example. If we can’t find a way to convey truth in a way that another can accept the is less hope for a positive response.

 

Straight is the way and narrow is the gate….

He that has ears to hear, let him hear….

Many are called but few are chosen….

 

I haven’t found my walk with God to be one that has required time set aside, it’s more of a presence, walking, talking, being aware that He is here. The kingdom of God is within.

So whichever version you prefer, it is God’s Spirit that will teach you if your heart is open. Gods’ Spirit will call you, your desire will impel you to seek a closer relationship and greater knowledge that you may “Rightly divide the word of truth.”

Eph, 4:13 Until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
 

In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
20 hours ago, islandrazor said:

Plus it is free from copyright in the US.

Why does that matter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Origen said:

Why does that matter?

 

I’m not sure. I thought I saw a caution on copy/paste material some time back. I have several bible apps and all offer the KJV free and mention copyright protection on other versions. Not that it seems to matter much and material on this forum may be considered to be for educational use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 5:24 PM, Faber said:

 This is addressed to any staunch KJVOnlyist that insist the new versions delete important words from the Bible to demean God and/or show disrespect to the Person of Christ. Please read and answer each question I have below from the following verses.

 

John 14:14
NASB: If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
KJV: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Question: Why is the "Me" removed from the KJV when it is a powerful evidence for the fact that the Lord Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer?

 

Acts 24:24

NASB: But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

KJV: And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

Question: Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

Romans 8:11

NASB: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

KJV: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Question: Why is the second usage of "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

Romans 11:22

NASB: Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

KJV: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Question: Why is "God's" removed from the KJV?

 

1 Corinthians 1:29

NASB: so that no man may boast before God.

KJV: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Question: Why is "God" removed and replaced with a "his" instead?

 

1 Corinthians 6:11

NASB: Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

KJV: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Question: Why is "Christ" removed from the KJV?

 

Ephesians 3:6

NASB: to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

KJV: That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.

Question:  Why is "Jesus" removed from the KJV?

 

James 4:12
NASB: There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
KJV: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Question: Why is "Judge" removed from the KJV?

 

1 Peter 3:15

NASB: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

KJV: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Question: Since we already have a passage about sanctifying the name of the Father as it relates to worship elsewhere (cf. Matthew 6:9), why is "Christ" removed from the KJV since this demonstrates that He, being God, is the proper recipient of worship?

 

Revelation 3:2

NASB: Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 

KJV: Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

Question: Why is "My" removed from the KJV?

 

Revelation 4:11

NASB: Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.

KJV: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Question: Why is "God" removed from the KJV?

 

Revelation 14:1

NASB: Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.
KJV: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Question: Why is "His name" (in reference to the Son) removed from the KJV?

 

Hello Faber,

 

While I'm not a KJV only person by any means, I do enjoy my KJV and it's my go to Bible of choice. 

 

That being said, all your questions ask why the KJV has removed many things, however isn't it true that the KJV was before the NASB?

 

Therefore the KJV doesn't appear to have removed anything on your list since it was before the NASB?

 

Therefore wouldn't the questions be why has the NASB added so much?

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello LF,

 

 I too enjoy the KJV. But the question ought to be what were the words that God inspired, for it doesn't really matter what English version was produced first. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Faber said:

Hello LF,

 

 I too enjoy the KJV. But the question ought to be what were the words that God inspired, for it doesn't really matter what English version was produced first. 

Hi Faber,

 

Totally agree with "what were the words that God inspired" and happy to hear you enjoy the KJV too! 

 

Then why did the NASB add so much that you presented since the KJV truly didn't delete them since the KJV was already in existence without them prior to the NASB?

 

By the way thank you for your questions in the original post, it adds to many things I've been looking at now for sometime about additions/deletions in various Bibles.

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FL,

 

 Since the NASB translation is based on earlier manuscripts how is it they have added to the Bible?

 

 Thanks for your encouragement. I was able (time wise) to compare both versions earlier this year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Faber said:

Hi FL,

 

 Since the NASB translation is based on earlier manuscripts how is it they have added to the Bible?

 

 Thanks for your encouragement. I was able (time wise) to compare both versions earlier this year. 

 

Hi Faber,

 

Interesting question indeed! A question that needs to be looked further into on all the verses you shared to see what has been added and/or removed and why the many differences in the manuscripts preferred by certain Bibles.

 

The older is better or more accurate doesn't satisfy my search for truth and which words are truly God inspired! 

 

According to that type of logic would we say Cain was older than Abel and thereby Cain was the best and most reliable since he was earlier? Of course not! We know how that worked out! Would we say Esau was best and most reliable since he was older than Jacob? Of course not! 

 

Are there any other reasons you have accepted the "earlier manuscripts" you refer to to be more accurate NT manuscripts or do you know of a more convincing approach than older is better that could help me understand why you think the manuscripts used for the KJV deleted out what you shared in the OP? 

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello LF,

 I don't think one should compare manuscripts with people. They are two different categories.

 Manuscripts written closer in age to the original would far more likely would be more accurate to what the author wrote.

 

https://georgehguthrie.com/new-blog/manuscripts-behind-the-kjv

 

https://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
9 hours ago, Love Fountain said:

According to that type of logic would we say Cain was older than Abel and thereby Cain was the best and most reliable since he was earlier? Of course not! We know how that worked out! Would we say Esau was best and most reliable since he was older than Jacob? Of course not! 

That is a false analogy.  The reason these manuscripts are preferred (as you put it) is not simply because they are older but because they are early in relationship to the original documents.  Common sense dictates the earlier the document the closer in time it is to the source(s).  Thus your analogy does not work.

 

Are there any other reasons you have accepted the "earlier manuscripts" you refer to to be more accurate NT manuscripts or do you know of a more convincing approach than older is better that could help me understand why you think the manuscripts used for the KJV deleted out what you shared in the OP?

No need!  You haven't offered anything to discredit the earlier manuscripts argument.  A bad analogy cannot overturn critical evidence, sound reasoning, and years of scholarship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Love Fountain said:

The older is better or more accurate doesn't satisfy my search for truth and which words are truly God inspired! 

I would recommend the documentary "Fragments of Truth" put out by the makers of Logos Bible Software earlier this year. 

FAITHLIFE.COM

Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda. Now available...

 

There is one reason that they address as to why we should look at the earlier manuscripts. To summarize it, the manuscripts, and likely the original autographs, would be circulated for not dozens of years but hundreds of years before they were retired. That means some of these earlier manuscripts that we have now found were likely to be used while the original autographs were still in circulation. If there were discrepancies, it is likely this would have been noted as the scribes and early church took the Word of God and its copy very seriously.  There are also problems with the manuscripts that the KJV used with regard to whether they were the original.

 

The thing to note is, that there are no real doctrinal changes between KJV and newer translations but newer translations help us to better understand nuances of certain passages.

 

It should also be noted that these new translations usually footnote where they differ from the Textus Receptus, etc. For example, it is likely the story of the woman caught in adultery was not originally part of John's Gospel. Yet, the new translations still keep it there but add footnotes or brackets to let the reader know that it is likely not part of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 5:36 AM, davidtaylorjr said:

I would recommend the documentary "Fragments of Truth" put out by the makers of Logos Bible Software earlier this year. 

FAITHLIFE.COM

Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda. Now available...

 

There is one reason that they address as to why we should look at the earlier manuscripts. To summarize it, the manuscripts, and likely the original autographs, would be circulated for not dozens of years but hundreds of years before they were retired. That means some of these earlier manuscripts that we have now found were likely to be used while the original autographs were still in circulation. If there were discrepancies, it is likely this would have been noted as the scribes and early church took the Word of God and its copy very seriously.  There are also problems with the manuscripts that the KJV used with regard to whether they were the original.

 

The thing to note is, that there are no real doctrinal changes between KJV and newer translations but newer translations help us to better understand nuances of certain passages.

 

It should also be noted that these new translations usually footnote where they differ from the Textus Receptus, etc. For example, it is likely the story of the woman caught in adultery was not originally part of John's Gospel. Yet, the new translations still keep it there but add footnotes or brackets to let the reader know that it is likely not part of the original.

 

Thank you Davidtaylorjr for sharing "Fragments of Truth", the trailer was interesting but not interesting enough to buy it. I tried the free download of the discussion guide in various web browsers but it didn't work. Are you able to attached a .pdf link to the discussion guide so I can read it?

 

As stated earlier, I'm not a KJV Only supporter but I do enjoy my KJV the most! In your post you suggest John 7:53-8:11 (woman caught in adultery) are not original to the Gospel of John, do you believe that to be true? Also, do you believe John 7:53-8:11 to be the word of God?

 

Look forward to your response and hope you also have a .pdf of the discussion quide.

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 5:01 AM, Origen said:

That is a false analogy.  The reason these manuscripts are preferred (as you put it) is not simply because they are older but because they are early in relationship to the original documents.  Common sense dictates the earlier the document the closer in time it is to the source(s).  Thus your analogy does not work.

 

 

No need!  You haven't offered anything to discredit the earlier manuscripts argument.  A bad analogy cannot overturn critical evidence, sound reasoning, and years of scholarship.

 

Thank you for your responses Origen!

 

IMHO, the only false analogy is "better is older" or "the earlier manuscripts argument" without further explanation to someone asking kindly, so thank you for your further explanation.

 

Common sense to one is not common sense to another, especially in light of the manuscript battle that continues on day in and day out to what is the actual word of God and what is not. Something done sooner by no means is common sense as to what was done correctly, neither is that type of reasoning effective to someone seeking truth other than what someone else merely states to be "their" fact.

 

Onward we go, "A bad analogy cannot overturn critical evidence, sound reasoning, and years of scholarship.", supposed critical evidence, supposed sound reasoning, and supposed years of scholarship are overturned all the time whether some accept correction or not, sure doesn't make anything older better or more reliable to truth.

 

How about we have a look at Mark 7:16.

 

Is Mark 7:16 original to the biblical text?

 

Is Mark 7:16 the word of God?

 

Look forward to your response on Mark 7:16 per my two questions.

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

Edited by Love Fountain
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 3:29 AM, Faber said:

Hello LF,

 I don't think one should compare manuscripts with people. They are two different categories.

 Manuscripts written closer in age to the original would far more likely would be more accurate to what the author wrote.

 

https://georgehguthrie.com/new-blog/manuscripts-behind-the-kjv

 

https://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

 

 

Thank you for your response Faber and further explanation along with the links for me to review!

 

With all due respect I do find the following statement rather pretentious, "Manuscripts written closer in age to the original would far more likely would be more accurate to what the author wrote", especially since we are discussing what is the true word of God!

 

Anyway, I have looked at the links you shared and will continue to look more and hope to have some discussion with you regarding them, however and for now what do you think about Mark 7:16.

 

Is Mark 7:16 the word of God and is Mark 7:16 original to the biblical text?

 

Blessings, 

Love Fountain

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
On 12/2/2018 at 2:09 PM, Love Fountain said:

IMHO, the only false analogy is "better is older" or "the earlier manuscripts argument" without further explanation to someone asking kindly, so thank you for your further explanation.

You are mistaken on three points.  First, no one here made an analogy concerning "better is older."  Second, the earlier the manuscripts the closer they are in time to the source documents.  That is a fact.  The logical reasons why that is important ought to be obvious.  Third, yours was a false analogy.  You use Cain as your example but it does not fit.   Merely because Cain was older has nothing to do with it.  It is not simply the age of the manuscripts but because they are early in relationship to the original documents.  That is how and why your Cain analogy completely fails.

 

On 12/2/2018 at 2:09 PM, Love Fountain said:

Common sense to one is not common sense to another,

So your claim is it is not common sense, really?  lol  It was stated that the earlier the documents the closer it is to the original documents.  Are you suggesting manuscripts 1000 years removed from the source are closer in time? Give a common sense why reason anyone should believe that.

 

On 12/2/2018 at 2:09 PM, Love Fountain said:

especially in light of the manuscript battle that continues on day in and day out to what is the actual word of God and what is not.

You are woefully informed.  Only a hand full people at best believe that claim and they are mostly KJV onlyist.

 

On 12/2/2018 at 2:09 PM, Love Fountain said:

Something done sooner by no means is common sense as to what was done correctly,

No one said that.  You misrepresent what was said.  Are you here to debate imaginary points?  It was stated that the earlier the documents the closer it is to the source.

 

On 12/2/2018 at 2:09 PM, Love Fountain said:

supposed critical evidence, supposed sound reasoning, and supposed years of scholarship are overturned all the time whether some accept correction or not, sure doesn't make anything older better or more reliable to truth.

Again you misrepresent what I said.  I stated "a bad analogy cannot overturn critical evidence, sound reasoning, and years of scholarship."  If you know of a case where a bad analogy has, then by all means cite it.  Up to this point you have offered nothing that could be considered critical evidence, sound reasoning, or scholarship.


By the way you refer to "supposed critical evidence, supposed sound reasoning, and supposed years of scholarship."  You seem to want to cast doubt upon the scholarship and the evidence with the word "supposed."  Could you list these "supposed" scholars and "supposed" evidence?

 

Quote

sure doesn't make anything older better or more reliable to truth.

Again no one said or argued that point.  The problems here is you are trying to defeat an argument no one here made or that any modern scholar believes.  Since no one believes that the manuscripts are better soley because they are older your claim is just a straw-man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 1:50 PM, Love Fountain said:

As stated earlier, I'm not a KJV Only supporter but I do enjoy my KJV the most! In your post you suggest John 7:53-8:11 (woman caught in adultery) are not original to the Gospel of John, do you believe that to be true? Also, do you believe John 7:53-8:11 to be the word of God?

I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that the passage was not penned by John and therefore not part of the original. By very definition, I do not believe it is the Word of God but cannot say that with 100% certainty. I don't have a problem with translations that include it because there is evidence to suggest it could be part of the original. The main kicker for me is that it is consistent with the rest of Scripture in doctrine. But personally, I would never use that story as a main point for a doctrine or practice because its authenticity is questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 5:24 PM, Faber said:

 

 

John 14:14
NASB: If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
KJV: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Question: Why is the "Me" removed from the KJV when it is a powerful evidence for the fact that the Lord Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer?

 

 

Hello Faber,

 

 

In order to understand why the NASB has “Me” incorrectly in John 14:14 we must first understand that John 14:13-14 cannot be divided from each other!

 

The reason John 14:13-14 cannot be divided from each other is because the two verses together form a figure of speech called Pleonasm , this figure is also known as redundancy!

 

This figure has been utilized by God, to give more emphasis to what is being stated in the text.

 

As shown below in the KJV of John 14:13-14, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name…” or “if ye shall ask any thing in my name…” is the same thing repeated in a different way, which is a pleonastic figure of speech.

 

 

 

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

        14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

 

 

The blunders of many of the modern literal translations/Bible versions, like the NASB is that they are so literal they have literally altered their versions of the words of God!

 

Not only have they literally altered the words of God in their literal pursuit of what was not literal, they have literally neglected what God has written in a figure of speech to emphasize what is written.

 

God uses figures of speech all over the Bible to give the students of the biblical text a more in-depth study and a more detailed understanding of what is written by giving more emphasis to the words in the Bible and their meanings.

 

Thus far, more than 200 Figures of Speech in The Bible utilized in thousands of ways have already been documented in the biblical text. Most people and those who consider themselves scholars appear to have no idea or regard of all the figures of speech written in the Bible!

 

 

The error of putting the word “Me” into John 14:14 is an example of the disregard or lack of knowledge regarding a couple figures used in many places in the Bible!

 

The first figure disregarded in John 14:13-14 is called Pleonasm  as noted above and the second figure of speech disregarded in John 14:13-14 is Ellipsis as shown below!

 

Ellipsis otherwise called Omission is when a word or words are left out of a sentence because they are not necessary for the sense of what is written.

 

In other words a grammatical figure of speech called Ellipsis is used when words are left out of a sentence because they are obvious to the sense of what is being stated!

 

The words left out by Ellipsis are noted below in John 14:13-14 in [brackets] and clearly shows we are to ask the Father in the name of the Son for there is no other way, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son” if the Father is left out of the asking!

 

 

 

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask [the Father] in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

        14:14 If ye shall ask [the Father] any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

 

 

 

 

Hope that helps!

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

 

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 

       16:24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. KJV

Edited by Love Fountain
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Love Fountain said:

The blunders of many of the modern literal translations/Bible versions, like the NASB is that they are so literal they have literally altered their versions of the words of God!

Right, because it couldn't be the KJV just isn't as accurate as they are.....

 

The KJV is not inspired, it is not the original, it is not the final authority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Love Fountain said:

 

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 
 

 

 John 14:14 teaches that prayer is to be directed to the Son.

 John 16:23 teaches that prayer is to be directed to the Father.

 

 

 Yo wrote, "The blunders of many of the modern literal translations/Bible versions, like the NASB is that they are so literal they have literally altered their versions of the words of God!"

 

 Nothing is being altered when there is not only good textual support for "Me" but since prayer to the Lord Jesus is taught elsewhere in the Bible John 14:14 is a further testimony to this very important truth. Indeed, that Christ is the proper recipient of prayer necessitates that He is God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
On 12/10/2018 at 9:38 PM, Love Fountain said:

In order to understand why the NASB has “Me” incorrectly in John 14:14 we must first understand that John 14:13-14 cannot be divided from each other!

 

The reason John 14:13-14 cannot be divided from each other is because the two verses together form a figure of speech called Pleonasm , this figure is also known as redundancy!

 

This figure has been utilized by God, to give more emphasis to what is being stated in the text.

 

As shown below in the KJV of John 14:13-14, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name…” or “if ye shall ask any thing in my name…” is the same thing repeated in a different way, which is a pleonastic figure of speech.

You have completely and utterly missed @Faber's point, and your figure of speech explanation is simply false.


First, KJV onlyist very often claim that the older manuscripts leave out important words and that modern translations blindly follow them.  They claim this is done to remove key doctrines.  Faber has turned that around on the KJV onlyist.  If it is true (which it is not) that modern translation leave key words in order to remove key doctrines, then it follows the same is true of the KJV for it does the exact same thing. That is why Faber asks:

 

Quote

Why is the "Me" removed from the KJV when it is a powerful evidence for the fact that the Lord Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer?

Somehow this point is lost upon you.

 

Second, there is a figure of speech called pleonasm.  Yet that does not explain the reason why the KJV left it out nor does it address Faber's point.  There is nothing redundant about the word "me."  Moreover if a modern translation left out a word that is seen as an error, that is a distortion of the biblical text.  When the KJV does (and it often does), then they have no problem with that.  By the way the reason why the word "me" is not found in the KJV had nothing to do with pleonasm or it being ellipsis.

 

Third, the reason the KJV does not have the word "me" is the translators did not know the word "me" was in the earliest Greek text.  The later manuscripts used in the Greek editions (they did not use actual manuscripts but followed printed editions of the Greek text) the KJV translators consulted do not contain the pronoun.

 

Fourth, it is important to the meaning of the text.  The pronoun gives warrant for praying directly to Jesus which (as Faber points out) "is a powerful evidence for the fact that the Lord Jesus is God in that He is the proper recipient of prayer."  The pronoun adds a personal emphasis.

 

LF you have not followed Faber's argument nor do you understand the issues, evidence, and arguments for or against the inclusion of the pronoun.

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Right, because it couldn't be the KJV just isn't as accurate as they are.....

 

The KJV is not inspired, it is not the original, it is not the final authority.

Hello davidtaylorjr,

 

Anything man touches becomes tarnished! The originals were not written in English!

 

God has provided many ways to fix what man has done so that the Berean Heart who searches the Scriptures for the truth with honesty can find God by searching with all his heart!

 

The modern translation only supporters and their hatred of the KJV has spawned the KJV only movement and both are ignorant!

 

This thread pitted the NASB vs. the KJV, in John 14:14, the KJV is correct and proven by the figures of Pleonasm and Ellipsis.

 

Blessings,

Love Fountain

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Origen said:

 

Third, the reason the KJV does not have the word "me" is the translators did not know the word "me" was in the earliest Greek text.

 

 Can you imagine if the KJV had the word "Me" and if the NASB and other modern versions did not have it?  - So too with all the other passages in the OP. Just imagine if it was the other way around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
On 12/11/2018 at 9:25 AM, Faber said:

Can you imagine if the KJV had the word "Me" and if the NASB and other modern versions did not have it?  - So too with all the other passages in the OP. Just imagine if it was the other way around.

They would lose their minds.  Everyone would be accused of heresy, follower of the devil.  Kind of sounds like them now!  lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

I have never read or heard of a modern translation only sect . I have encountered KJO sect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

×
×
  • Create New...