Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, I'll look at what Dr. Wallace said about [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html]]]The Johannine Comma[/URL],

Excerpt taken from the article by Daniel Wallace - Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today: “Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text”

Daniel Wallace is wrong and so was Metzger.

John UK wrote:
More misinformation from the self-appointed Protestant Pope Jim Lincoln

ASV For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre;
(Tit 1:7)

ERV For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not selfwilled, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre;
(Tit 1:7)

NKJV For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,( Titus 1:7 )

ESV For an overseer,[a](A) as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not(B) be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent(C) or greedy for gain, (Titus 1:7)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
by the way are you fellows using a gutted version of it, without Preface, marginal notes, and Apocrypha? Then it isn't an authentic AV!

The Net Bible includes the Deutero-Canonicals/
Apocrypha

Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha:

“In other editions of the NET Bible these books will be placed between the Old and New Testaments in their own distinct section just as a number of other Protestant Bibles have done (for example, the NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE, NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, and the King James Version for much of it history)…”
[URL=http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm]]]Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha[/URL]

Septuagint - LXX … includes the Apocrypha

ESV w/ Apocrypha

Michael Hranek wrote:
mlw
First I disagree with your premise.
Second the NASB gives sufficient and accurate context for an honest person to know Jesus was not going up to the Feast of Tabernacles to disclose Himself publically as Messiah. That would come at the Triumphal Entry later one. And He certainly didn't go up with His brothers who thought He was out of His mind and certainly didn't believe in Him at that time. A better translation IMHO than brethern.
By the way answer me this:
Does the love of God for you depend upon whether you use the KJV or not?

2. No, but I believe the Lord has preserved His Word in the Received Text which underlies the KJV and other Bibles so they are the ones I will keep and use.

"Dr. Combs wrote:
...Instead, the final authority for the Christian must be the inspired autographs."

"The final authority for the Christian must be the inspired autographs."

Did the NASB get it right in John 7:8-10 where it makes our Lord lie?

Jim’s post: “Dr. Combs wrote: “It is the original text (words, script, autograph—graphe, 2 Tim 3:16) that partakes of inspiration proper. All other texts, copies, reproductions, translations, and versions partake of inspiration in an indirect, linear fashion from previous copies and translations to the extent that they reproduce the text of the original manuscripts.... Thus any translation or version of Scripture in any language is the Word of God if it accurately reproduces what is in the original manuscripts.”

Mike wrote:
John 1:45. (AV) Philip get it wrong?

Gill’s commentary John 1:45 “that he was the son of Joseph; this Philip says, according to the common opinion of people, for he was supposed to be the son of Joseph; he having married his mother Mary.”

JFB commentary John 1:45 - son of Joseph — “the current way of speaking. (See Luk_3:23).”

Mike wrote:
My mother, the one who raised me, wasn't the one who birthed and abandoned me, either. But she was my mother. There's more to being a father or mother than making babies.

Gill - Luke 2:33 “And Joseph and his mother,.... The Vulgate Latin reads, "and his father and mother". The Ethiopic version retains both his name and his relation, and reads, "and Joseph his father, and his mother"; but all the ancient copies read only "Joseph", without the addition, his father; and so the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions.”

Jim Lincoln wrote:
John, UK, no NOT when they either add or subtract from what in the original manuscripts. This is one reason that the KJV is bigger because Catholic scribes added to it.
But for the matter of blood,
from, [URL=http://www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.html]]]King James Onlyism[/URL]

Go to the link below and read an excellent article that deals with this verse and its textual support.

“This is a partial listing of examples were the translators of the 1611 King James Version, consulted and borrowed from the Catholic Douay translation [1582 AD.] of the Bible and not the Greek texts. This is a Great example of the debt Protestants who read the KJV owe to the Roman Catholic Church.”

One of verses that the KJV supposedly borrowed from the Douay was Acts 8:37. The KJV translators never borrowed from the Catholic Douay translation but got it from the Greek texts and manuscripts listed below.

“The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir. It is in manuscripts E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739...”

"Many church fathers... quote this verse, including Irenaeus 178 A.D., Tertullian 220, Cyprian 258..."

"It is also the reading found in the Old Latin manuscripts..."

Michael Hranek wrote:
Oops. Looks like the NASB got that part quite right.

"Go up to the feast yourselves; I DO NOT GO UP to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

"Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee."

"But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, THEN HE HIMSELF ALSO WENT UP, not publicly, but as if, in secret."

They got it from "Sinaiticus which says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar."

The KJV got it right!

"Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN WENT HE ALSO UP unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]Why the NASB?[/URL] has been answered by the great majority conservative Christians years ago, or other fine translations, now if you don't speak English, but only Elizabethan, then KJV is adequate though not as good as the Geneva! Nobody can call the Geneva version of the Bible ecumenical!

The link below will take you to some great articles on the KJV and the modern versions.