The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[Avid]

My copy is the size of a standard pew Bible, and the gothic is not all that hard when you know the rules!

 

[HantsUK]

th


How or does Guy Fawkes figure in ?

He doesn't.

Guy Fawkes was part of a small group who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament (Gun Powder Plot). The aim was to kill the Protestant King James, and replace him with his 9 year old daughter, who would then be brought up as a Catholic. Guy Fawkes was tried, found guilty, and hanged.

The 5th November we have bonfires and fireworks to celebrate the discovery of the gunpowder plot and the Houses of Parliament surviving.

 

[FredVB]

The scriptures are preserved, and the preservation is not any one of the various translations, the preservation is the testimony to what the original writings, the autographa, were saying, by the totality of the early manuscripts from the very early generations of Christianity, that survived through difficult times for being preserved, miraculously.

 

[OzSpen]

The scriptures are preserved, and the preservation is not any one of the various translations, the preservation is the testimony to what the original writings, the autographa, were saying, by the totality of the early manuscripts from the very early generations of Christianity, that survived through difficult times for being preserved, miraculously.

Fred,

We don't have access to the autographa (perhaps we would worship them if we had them). We only have access to copies of the autographa. My son was in London recently for work and he visited the British Museum where he saw one of those copies, portion of Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from the middle of the 4th century.

Much of the preservation is in scraps (portions) of MSS copies. The late Bruce Metzger, one of the finest textual examiners and critics of the 20th century, has noted that there are 'approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the new Testament'. Two of the most important papyrus manuscripts of the NT are those by Chester Beatty of London, now in the Beatty Museum in Dublin, and Martin Bodmer of Geneva.

P45, the first of the Chester Beatty biblical papyri, comprise portions of 30 leaves of papyri. Originally, the codex consisted of 220 leaves (10 x 8 inches), containing 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts. 'Today Matthew and John are the least well preserved' (Metzger 1992:36-37).

Various types of text are in Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Koine or Byzantine forms of the text.

It's amazing that God has preserved these texts in this fashion so that we can arrive at Septuagint (LXX) OT and Greek NT texts that led to other ancient and now modern translations.

Oz

Works consulted
Metzger, B M 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[~cj~]

You don't need permission to make copies of the King James Bible. You do need permission to make copies of the perversions of God's word which secure exclusive profits through copyright.

You don't have the word of God if the originals are lost and you do not believe God preserved His word without error. What you have is erroneous things that have been handed down with no concern from God for protecting His word to keep it as He gave it.

You're right we don't need permission to make a copy of the King James Bible. It only has a crown right which means nothing to us and that expires and can't be renewed. I have 4 different King James Bible here and not one has a copyright by Cambridge on it or the word Cambridge anywhere. Modern users like to use that crown right like it means something. As Paul would say, it's dung to us.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You're right we don't need permission to make a copy of the King James Bible. It only has a crown right which means nothing to us and that expires and can't be renewed. I have 4 different King James Bible here and not one has a copyright by Cambridge on it or the word Cambridge anywhere. Modern users like to use that crown right like it means something. As Paul would say, it's dung to us.

Why do people post fictitious information on Christian message boards? Here is a link to the truth: http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/queens-printers-patent

See here also: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_king_james_copy.htm

 

[~cj~]

Why do people post fictitious information on Christian message boards? Here is a link to the truth: http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/queens-printers-patent

See here also: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_king_james_copy.htm

Why do people accuse Christians of lying on Christian message boards? Doug Kutelik is antiKJV. The KJV only has a crown 'copyright'. The word Cambridge is not in the opening pages of any of my KJBs nor is there any copyright by them in them. It's protected by royal prerogative in England, not copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Why do people accuse Christians of lying on Christian message boards? Doug Kutelik is antiKJV. The KJV only has a crown 'copyright'. The word Cambridge is not in the opening pages of any of my KJBs nor is there any copyright by them in them. It's protected by royal prerogative in England, not copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status

The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status

Please notice these words, “the right to print, publish and distribute it”. That is copyright protection; and this right to copy is still in force in perpetuity under the terms of letters patent. I learned these matters firsthand when I was writing a book in which the KJV was being quoted extensively, and in order to legally sell the book in the United Kingdom, I needed authorization to include the extensive quotes from the KJV. I obtained that authorization, in writing, from Cambridge University.

The one and only reason why this issue comes up in threads about the KJV is that some radicalized Christian fundamentalists have been brainwashed into believing that the KJV is the one and only translation of the Bible that God has preserved—one of the most destructive and harmful lies to come from the world rulers of the present darkness.

In order to promote that evil, these radicalized Christian fundamentalists resort to, on a daily basis, propagating unimaginably evil and malicious lies about the excellent translations of the Bible that millions of Christians depend upon for the truth, and unimaginably evil and malicious lies about the men and women of God whom God Himself has chosen and used to give to all of us the most accurate and readable translations of the Bible that are possible.

Doug Kutelik’s opinion of the KJV is irrelevant to the facts regarding KJV. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it or writes it. Translation theory of is one of my chief interests, and it has been for about 15 years. During those 15 years, I have come into possession of a massive amount of KJO propaganda, and I have never seen in any other propaganda on any other subject more outright lies that were written to maliciously malign the servants of God and the fruits of their labor.

 

[~cj~]

The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status

Please notice these words, “the right to print, publish and distribute it”. That is copyright protection; and this right to copy is still in force in perpetuity under the terms of letters patent. I learned these matters firsthand when I was writing a book in which the KJV was being quoted extensively, and in order to legally sell the book in the United Kingdom, I needed authorization to include the extensive quotes from the KJV. I obtained that authorization, in writing, from Cambridge University.

The one and only reason why this issue comes up in threads about the KJV is that some radicalized Christian fundamentalists have been brainwashed into believing that the KJV is the one and only translation of the Bible that God has preserved—one of the most destructive and harmful lies to come from the world rulers of the present darkness.

In order to promote that evil, these radicalized Christian fundamentalists resort to, on a daily basis, propagating unimaginably evil and malicious lies about the excellent translations of the Bible that millions of Christians depend upon for the truth, and unimaginably evil and malicious lies about the men and women of God whom God Himself has chosen and used to give to all of us the most accurate and readable translations of the Bible that are possible.

Doug Kutelik’s opinion of the KJV is irrelevant to the facts regarding KJV. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it or writes it. Translation theory of is one of my chief interests, and it has been for about 15 years. During those 15 years, I have come into possession of a massive amount of KJO propaganda, and I have never seen in any other propaganda on any other subject more outright lies that were written to maliciously malign the servants of God and the fruits of their labor.

Let me put it this way. I don't live in the UK so I'm not concerned about a 'copyright'. The only copyright on my KJBs is from each individual publisher and that is only protecting the style in the way they published up, ie, one having maps, one have devotional, dictionaries, one is purple pointing out scriptures for women, etc. It's not a debate issue. My KJBs have no copyright on the verses and I don't live in the UK.

 

[DeaconDean]

What is perfection to you .. If I see 2 fruit trees , one symmetrically perfect , but the other appears less attractive with 2 or three branches broken off in a storm .. They both still have their root system intact and produce fruit .. Which one is perfect ? I think we're on the same page ..

Let me put this in simple words.

Everclear is a liquor that is 95% alcohol, or, 180 proof. It would be illegal to market and sale it as "pure" 100% alcohol.

Likewise, the KJV is not 100% pure. Erasmus created a Greek work in Revelation that has no usage in the Attic Greek or Koine.

For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.52 For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ajkavqarta (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ajkaqavrthto", a word unknown in Greek literature.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf

The publisher he sent it to, included his own words in it when he published it. In fact, William Combs points out that those words are still in the KJV today.

A comparison between the manuscripts used by the printer and the printed text indicates that the printer did not accept every correction that Erasmus proposed, and that the printer made some revisions not authorized by Erasmus.

These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR, such as the widely used version published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/erasmus.pdf

The KJV, to use is as good as it gets, nobody here disputes that. It's the version I use, I study, I tech and preach from, but it's not perfect. No major doctrine that Christianity rests upon is affected by any of the disputed words. The KJV in most likelyhood, is about 97.9-99.7%. But that is not 100%! That is not "perfect".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

Let me put this in simple words.
The KJV, to use is as good as it gets, nobody here disputes that. It's the version I use, I study, I tech and preach from, but it's not perfect. No major doctrine that Christianity rests upon is affected by any of the disputed words. The KJV in most likelyhood, is about 97.9-99.7%. But that is not 100%! That is not "perfect".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

Since we now have more and earlier MSS evidence than Erasmus had for the Textus Receptus that was NT Greek behind the KJV, most of the modern translations use a more accurate Greek text than that of Erasmus from the 16th century.

We run into this kind of problem with Erasmus - and so the KJV:

As indicated above, Erasmus had access to only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was missing, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. What did Erasmus do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. Since that time, earlier Greek MSS have been found and these confirm that in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in the Textus Receptus, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS.

This is but one example of how the later editions of the Greek text (behind, for example, the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, etc ) are more accurate than the Textus Receptus used for the KJV translation that translates these 'unknown' words.

However, this evidence does not deny the fact that many of us (I am one of them) were raised on the KJV and God used it wonderfully to communicate the Gospel, Christ and the teaching of Scripture to us. However, since the 16th century more evidence has come to light of better MSS.

There are 2 added problems when we push the use of the KJV: (1) The language of the KJV is not as we speak today and when we quote it when sharing the Gospel with unbelievers, we run the risk of creating another barrier to clear communication. (2) The KJV that is most freely available today is not a copy of the 1611 original that came with the Apocrypha, but is generally the 1769 revision. Which KJV edition are you using, 1611 or 1769?

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

Since we now have more and earlier MSS evidence than Erasmus had for the Textus Receptus that was NT Greek behind the KJV, most of the modern translations use a more accurate Greek text than that of Erasmus from the 16th century.

We run into this kind of problem with Erasmus - and so the KJV:

As indicated above, Erasmus had access to only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was missing, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. What did Erasmus do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. Since that time, earlier Greek MSS have been found and these confirm that in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in the Textus Receptus, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS.

This is but one example of how the later editions of the Greek text (behind, for example, the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, etc ) are more accurate than the Textus Receptus used for the KJV translation that translates these 'unknown' words.

However, this evidence does not deny the fact that many of us (I am one of them) were raised on the KJV and God used it wonderfully to communicate the Gospel, Christ and the teaching of Scripture to us. However, since the 16th century more evidence has come to light of better MSS.

There are 2 added problems when we push the use of the KJV: (1) The language of the KJV is not as we speak today and when we quote it when sharing the Gospel with unbelievers, we run the risk of creating another barrier to clear communication. (2) The KJV that is most freely available today is not a copy of the 1611 original that came with the Apocrypha, but is generally the 1769 revision. Which KJV edition are you using, 1611 or 1769?

Oz

I am in agreement with you.

However, my response was in part to the part addressing perfection.

And in spite of the evidence of earlier Greek manuscripts, the TR is still revered.

And in spite of all that, there is still the undeniable fact that there are no Greek manuscripts, none, that don't show evidence of "editing" by a scribe.

But what is the most use group of manuscripts still used today?

The Textus Receptus

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

I am in agreement with you.

However, my response was in part to the part addressing perfection.

And in spite of the evidence of earlier Greek manuscripts, the TR is still revered.

And in spite of all that, there is still the undeniable fact that there are no Greek manuscripts, none, that don't show evidence of "editing" by a scribe.

But what is the most use group of manuscripts still used today?

The Textus Receptus

God Bless

Till all are one.

I agree that there is no perfection in transcription. From the information available to me from those who deal with the MSS, when MSS are compared there are variants that would be the equivalent of what we call typographical errors.

Who reveres the TR? From where do you gain the information that the most used group of MSS today is still the Textus Receptus? The TR is not the group of MSS used by modern translations. Instead, something like the United Bible Societies Greek text or the Nestle-Aland text is used. The TR or Received Text is used by KJV and NKJV advocates.

 

[OzSpen]

Man, I try to be nice to you for a change and you beat me down. I'll not make that mistake again!

I do not know why you have to be nasty to me like this when all I was doing was asking reasonable and responsible questions.

 

[DeaconDean]

never mind. its just not worth it

 

[Job8]

Since we now have more and earlier MSS evidence than Erasmus had for the Textus Receptus that was NT Greek behind the KJV, most of the modern translations use a more accurate Greek text than that of Erasmus from the 16th century.

This is what today's textual scholars would have us believe. But it is totally false and misleading. In fact, quite the opposite. The critical texts of modern scholars since 1881 are ALL based on the most corrupt Greek manuscripts. This was meticulously researched by several genuine textual scholars in the 19th century such as Burgon, Scrivener, and Hoskier, BUT THEIR FINDINGS WERE DELIBERATELY IGNORED.

For an in-depth look at this matter please study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon. Since I own a reprint of this 19th century book, I can speak about this with complete confidence. Burgon was outstanding and honest to a fault (maybe too blunt). Scrivener had great respect for him, and Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century.

So to get back to the discussion of the TR (the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text), it is indeed the most reliable for the simple reason that it represents the majority of extant Greek manuscripts. And all Reformation Bibles were based on the TR.

 

[OzSpen]

This is what today's textual scholars would have us believe. But it is totally false and misleading. In fact, quite the opposite. The critical texts of modern scholars since 1881 are ALL based on the most corrupt Greek manuscripts. This was meticulously researched by several genuine textual scholars in the 19th century such as Burgon, Scrivener, and Hoskier, BUT THEIR FINDINGS WERE DELIBERATELY IGNORED.

That is not how it was seen by one of the eminent NT textual critics of the 20th century, the late Professor Bruce Metzger in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

(courtesy Questia)

For a review of the 2nd edition of this book, see JETS 2006.

 

[Job8]

That is not how it was seen by one of the eminent NT textual critics of the 20th century, the late Professor Bruce Metzger in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Since Bruce Metzger is theologically liberal and a disciple of Westcott & Hort, you can certainly expect him to promote the errors of W&H. They concocted a fantastic theory which was a complete fabrication. Burgon exposed their lies and Metzger simply ignored Burgon and Scrivener. Scrivener wrote the textbook on textual criticism (of which I have a copy) and confirmed Burgon's conclusions. Read and study The Revision Revised (1883) as well as A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener (1894) and you will discover that Metzger and his allies have been leading people down the garden path.

 

[OzSpen]

Since Bruce Metzger is theologically liberal and a disciple of Westcott & Hort, you can certainly expect him to promote the errors of W&H. They concocted a fantastic theory which was a complete fabrication. Burgon exposed their lies and Metzger simply ignored Burgon and Scrivener. Scrivener wrote the textbook on textual criticism (of which I have a copy) and confirmed Burgon's conclusions. Read and study The Revision Revised (1883) as well as A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener (1894) and you will discover that Metzger and his allies have been leading people down the garden path.

That is NOT John Piper's view. Piper wrote at the time of Bruce Metzger's death:

Personal Tribute to Bruce Manning Metzger (Source: desiringGod)
February 14, 2007​

• by John Piper

Bruce Metzger died on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at the age of 93. He was the George L. Collord Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. I think it would be fair to say that in his prime there was no greater authority on New Testament textual criticism than Dr. Metzger—at least not in the English-speaking world. I have five memories by way of tribute to a great man.

1. His book, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Context was the text I used each time I taught the basic New Testament course at Bethel from 1974 to 1979. It was short, careful, solid, and readable.

2. He came to Fuller Seminary during my studies there (1968-71) and taught a class on Galatians, which I took with great enjoyment. I was so helped by his teaching and so impressed with him as a man, I applied to Princeton to do my graduate work with him when I was finished at Fuller in 1971. I was rejected. He wrote me a personal letter to ease my disappointment, saying that only four people were accepted. It helped (a little).

3. He told us the story that when the Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was published, the publisher offered $25 for every mistake people found. He told of sitting up in bed at night reading the concordance noting errors—more for enjoyment than money.

4. Only when the Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and the Aland Greek Testament coincided in wording did I make the change to use the small pocket size Aland Greek New Testament. Until then my ragged old Greek Testament was the Bible Societies’ edition—the one edited by Bruce Metzger.

5. He quoted a Chinese proverb: “The faintest ink is more lasting than the strongest memory.” Accordingly, he said in his Memoir (Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, p. 229) that he made notes of noteworthy sayings on 3 by 5 cards as he read throughout his life. There are over 20,000 of these which were left to the archives at Princeton. One of them from R. W. Sockman says, “Time is the deposit each one has in the bank of God, and no one knows the balance.” (Until the note falls due.)

I pray that I will fill my days as diligently as Bruce Metzger. His life gave the word assiduous flesh and blood meaning.


John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books.​