And I'm saying it wasn't. There was no careless handling of the Word from the very beginning. From the church of Antioch, which began in 35AD, and is described in the Book of Acts, we have clear and undeniable sources for the texts that were used in the KJV and other Reformation translations. Polycarp was quoting chapter and verse from the finished work in 127AD.
The Septuagint is the Old Testament translated to classical Greek by the Alexandrians.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the King James Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Which do you think is more accurate based on those facts?
Any differences you find in the Septuagint are changes made by the Alexandrians. There's a reason the Bible warns us about Egypt and Luke tells us exactly who the Alexandrians were in Acts.
Acts 6:9-14
9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
The Alexandrians were part of the group of Grecians who lied about Stephen to the Jewish high priest.
In Acts 7, we see Stephen gave a fabulous speech to the high priest before being stoned to death for his supposed crimes-
We can see in Acts 7, Saul, who later becomes Paul, witnessed the stoning of Stephen and likely participated in it. Paul later becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles, replacing Judas.
The stoning of Stephen marks the end of the 490 year prophecy in Daniel. The Israelites were given 3.5 years after the Resurrection to accept Jesus as their Messiah. If the high priest had accepted Stephen's testimony, the world would have ended at that time. Instead, God closed the eyes and ears of the Israelites so that salvation could be opened to the Gentiles.
Romans 11 breaks this down. You can read it in full here-
Israel is the natural branch. Romans 11 even states the Jews are our enemies concerning the gospel for our sakes.
Romans 11:25-28
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
As a side note, the only error I've found in the King James is the translation of a word the translators didn't know the meaning of as "unicorn" but it does not change anything doctrinally in the slightest.
Masoretic text was compiled by Rabbis in the 7th to 10th Centuries lol. But you do not think any editing or telephone game occurred there compares to the much earlier translation from the Greeks? There is a reason Orthodox Christians do not read that translation into Slavonic, Russian etc. because it is corrupt. How many Bible translations have you read? I can assure that if you read KJV in English and read NRT in Russian you will see KJV to be corrupt and inaccurate which is why KJV is not officially sanctioned by Orthodox churches for liturgy.
I have no idea what Dick's problem is, I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. Swallowing up satan's propaganda seems like the most likely culprit. Anyway, the link above, and you can follow more links within, explains the Truth of the matter.
And I'm saying it wasn't. There was no careless handling of the Word from the very beginning. From the church of Antioch, which began in 35AD, and is described in the Book of Acts, we have clear and undeniable sources for the texts that were used in the KJV and other Reformation translations. Polycarp was quoting chapter and verse from the finished work in 127AD.
The catholics are liars like their father.
KJV is crap.
The Geneva Bible is most authentic English translation.
It’s what the Pilgrims brought to America.
KJV was state propaganda and has many differences from the Septuagint.
The Septuagint is the Old Testament translated to classical Greek by the Alexandrians.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the King James Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Which do you think is more accurate based on those facts?
Any differences you find in the Septuagint are changes made by the Alexandrians. There's a reason the Bible warns us about Egypt and Luke tells us exactly who the Alexandrians were in Acts.
Acts 6:9-14
9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
The Alexandrians were part of the group of Grecians who lied about Stephen to the Jewish high priest.
In Acts 7, we see Stephen gave a fabulous speech to the high priest before being stoned to death for his supposed crimes-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207&version=KJV
We can see in Acts 7, Saul, who later becomes Paul, witnessed the stoning of Stephen and likely participated in it. Paul later becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles, replacing Judas.
The stoning of Stephen marks the end of the 490 year prophecy in Daniel. The Israelites were given 3.5 years after the Resurrection to accept Jesus as their Messiah. If the high priest had accepted Stephen's testimony, the world would have ended at that time. Instead, God closed the eyes and ears of the Israelites so that salvation could be opened to the Gentiles.
Romans 11 breaks this down. You can read it in full here-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=KJV
Israel is the natural branch. Romans 11 even states the Jews are our enemies concerning the gospel for our sakes.
Romans 11:25-28
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
As a side note, the only error I've found in the King James is the translation of a word the translators didn't know the meaning of as "unicorn" but it does not change anything doctrinally in the slightest.
Masoretic text was compiled by Rabbis in the 7th to 10th Centuries lol. But you do not think any editing or telephone game occurred there compares to the much earlier translation from the Greeks? There is a reason Orthodox Christians do not read that translation into Slavonic, Russian etc. because it is corrupt. How many Bible translations have you read? I can assure that if you read KJV in English and read NRT in Russian you will see KJV to be corrupt and inaccurate which is why KJV is not officially sanctioned by Orthodox churches for liturgy.
Aside from the commentary notes being removed, can you tell me some differences that matter?
I’ve studied the many different versions and came to the conclusion that both the Geneva and KJV are good and reliable.
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/
I have no idea what Dick's problem is, I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. Swallowing up satan's propaganda seems like the most likely culprit. Anyway, the link above, and you can follow more links within, explains the Truth of the matter.