Is the KJV Missing "and such we are"?
Although the NASB has the complete verse, the King James Version is missing the words "and such we are"
The correct reading should be "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and [such] we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."
The KJV does not contain a critical phrase that is in the NASB because the Textus receptus doesn't have it because it was lost early on in the Byzantine text-type due to a simple error of sight.
Solution
|
Agree (5) Disagree (0) |
|
100% |
The verse is complete as far as textual evidence demonstrates in the King James Bible. The Byzantine text family was part of the Providential Preservation of the Scriptures. Modern Textual critics created the text that the NASB was translated from in the 2oth century. It brackets three of the four resurrection accounts thus leaving only one account. Simon Greenleaf in his book about the resurrection of Christ defends all the accounts as factual. The Textus Receptus is a much more reliable witness than the newer modern critical text that is influenced by Rationalism. I was challenged by a Professor when I took a class on Textual Criticism. He like many others who embrace the Modern Critical Text, simply dismissed the Providential Preservation of the text of the Scriptures. He stated at best 85% of the Scriptures are true. He stated Textual Critics needed to tell us what God said. The NASB also footnotes 1st John 5 where the Trinity is expounded and states it is not in original text (Which no one has ever seen). The NASB has many issues that make it a poor translation. Its many deletions as well as the weight of the evidence that supports the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine textual family. Please respond when you get a chance,
God Bless,
Bro. Chris Davidson
Eccl.3:1
Solution
|
Agree (9) Disagree (0) |
|
100% |
Sorry, but you are wrong. The additional words were not lost, but were added by corrupt texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which constantly disagree even with each other. The additional words "kai esmen" are not found in the Majority of all Greek texts, nor in the Traditional texts of the Textus Receptus variety. Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in this verse are Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Darby, the Douay-Rheims, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley 1755, the Hebrew Names Version, the Modern Greek version used in the Orthodox churches today, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera's 1909, 1960 and 1995, and the NKJV.
People who bring up examples like this are among those who do not believe that any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) are the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God.
The King James Bible is right, as always. That is what I firmly believe.
God bless,
Will Kinney