KJV Only?

[now faith]

Desiderius Erasmus,did not translate the Bible in order to publish his own version.

He simply translated the Greek and showed the error in the Vulgate.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Neither do I condemn those who use other versions. I simply state that after many years of study and research, I have come to the conviction that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV for English speaking people.

There are today, over 100 versions of the English Bible, all having obtained a copyright. This means that each of these "Bibles" must be significantly different, in order to avoid plagiarism; yet, they all claim to be the same Word of God. How can this be?

Jack

You claim not to condemn, yet you speak in contempt of any other translation, such as using quotation marks. Scripture tells me not to allow that which I believe is good to be spoken of otherwise, so how can I not push back at such an idea?

You see a flaw in differences. For one, the English language, as all languages do, has significantly evolved since 1611. Why would God allow one perfect translation for the common language of that time and deny it to those who came after?

 

[Jack Koons]

Ancient texts have no copyright. What is copyrighted are the translational works of the teams.

Yes, and of those translational works of teams, there are over 100 DIFFERENT translations of the same undying Greek Text, each of them having obtained "copyright", and therefore each of them must be substantially different, while still claiming to be the same.

Textual Problems with the King James: The Trinity ? Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

The above article is completely biased, written by an advocate offsets textual criticism.

Jack

 

[James Is Back]

James White sums this up straight to the point:

Sam Gipp Attacks! - YouTube

 

[classicalhero]

Well, you can only definitively consider them omissions if you hold that the TR is more accurate. Otherwise they may be additions.

The problem with Westcott and Hort is they rely on two of the oldest translation. In fact one of them is missing the Mark passage clearly had enough room to write was there, so it is not like that there isn't evidence it shouldn't be part of the Bible. Sinaiticus and Vaticanicus are both survivors because they were simply discards. Sinaiticus was found in the rubbish dump on Sinai near the monastery there. Eramus ha access to the library at the Vatican and he had read the manuscript, but rejected it as flawed as a result of it's massive deviation from the norm.
Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?

What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
​

That brings me to the problem of the di homoeotéleuton omissions in Sinaiticus. The word di homoeotéleuton is Greek for "because of a similar ending." Here are some examples of the sloppy work of the scribes.
Note: In the following passages the italicized, bold words are omitted in Sinaiticus...
1 Cor. 13:1-2. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first "and have not charity," but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.
Now a more complicated example:
1 Cor. 15:25-27. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [27] For he hath put all things under his feet."
Here it is not immediately clear what has happened. But when it is known that in some early manuscripts the order of clauses is as shown below, once again we see that the scribe's eye has jumped from the first occurrence of a phrase to the second occurrence:
[27] "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. For he hath put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
And in the very next verse another such omission:
1 Cor. 15:27-28. "But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did subject unto him all things. 28 And when there shall be subjected unto him all things, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
These di homoeotéleuton omissions number about 300 in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus. They are not taken seriously as variant readings by the editors of critical editions and in fact are not even mentioned in the notes of the critical editions of currently used translations. But, the sloppy scribal work, as in "The Vinegar Bible" precludes this old manuscript as being characterized as "the best" does it not?

That is a major problem with the manuscript and it shows scribal error, which does explain why it is still around being so old, because no one was using it.

 

[LucyEnEcosse]

Perhaps this is slightly non-linear, but I feel like the KJV is fine for those who like it, but equally fine is relating to a modern translation of the Bible.

Language evolves constantly, and it's totally reasonable that something written hundreds of years ago wouldn't appeal to a lot of people today. I'm of the view that it doesn't matter how His message is conveyed to us, so long as we hear His word in some form.

Personally, I'm a fan of the NIV Inclusive Language edition.

 

[Jack Koons]

Perhaps this is slightly non-linear, but I feel like the KJV is fine for those who like it, but equally fine is relating to a modern translation of the Bible.

Language evolves constantly, and it's totally reasonable that something written hundreds of years ago wouldn't appeal to a lot of people today. I'm of the view that it doesn't matter how His message is conveyed to us, so long as we hear His word in some form.

Personally, I'm a fan of the NIV Inclusive Language edition.

That is interesting, because even. Dr. James White doesn't support the NIV.

Jack

 

[James Is Back]

That is interesting, because even. Dr. James White doesn't support the NIV.

Jack

Um I don't think so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5T2aqbyxuA

 

[DeaconDean]

That is a major problem with the manuscript and it shows scribal error, which does explain why it is still around being so old, because no one was using it.

Well then, why not throw all the manuscripts away because all show kind of scribal work done to them?

No two Greek manuscripts, read exactly the same, none.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Um I don't think so: ...

Beware of brother James White, though I like his presentations in the Islamic forums for their information [and also serves to benefit Romanism], his material elsewhere in his assault on the KJB, and its manuscripts, is stemming from the Roman element, and his ministry even bears the symbol that Rome carries in the Alpha, Omega all over their materials, and James White even utilizes the Triquetra of Roman Catholicisms in his materials, as well as teaching the same Trinity of Romanism [and endorsed on the back of his book by Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa, a Roman Catholic] which is unscripturally defined [there is a Scriptural 'Trinity'; Godhead, but it is not as defined by Romanism], and some of his logic, whether he knows it or not is Jesuit inspired... Hegelian... synthesis...

 

[James Is Back]

Beware of brother James White, though I like his presentations in the Islamic forums for their information [and also serves to benefit Romanism], his material elsewhere in his assault on the KJB, and its manuscripts, is stemming from the Roman element, and his ministry even bears the symbol that Rome carries in the Alpha, Omega all over their materials, and James White even utilizes the Triquetra of Roman Catholicisms in his materials, as well as teaching the same Trinity of Romanism [and endorsed on the back of his book by Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa, a Roman Catholic] which is unscripturally defined [there is a Scriptural 'Trinity'; Godhead, but it is not as defined by Romanism], and some of his logic, whether he knows it or not is Jesuit inspired... Hegelian... synthesis...

Really First I disagree with his Reformed side but his other points on KJVO and Textual Criticism is on point. As far as him associated with Rome that is so untrue. He has debated against Catholic Apologetics on certain subjects such as the Apocrypha,Papal Infallibility and other Catholic beliefs.

Like I said I don't agree with his Reform/Calvinistic idealism but I do agree with his other Apologetic defenses.

 

[DeaconDean]

Desiderius Erasmus,did not translate the Bible in order to publish his own version.

He simply translated the Greek and showed the error in the Vulgate.

Not necessarily.

The primary purpose of Erasmus was to publish his annotations along with his Latin translation. The Greek text was only there for the purpose of confirming the Latin translation...Erasmus was concerned about the Greek text only to the extent that it proved his Latin translation was not plucked out of thin air. That he was not primarily interested in the Greek text is clear from the fact that he never brought out a separate edition of just the Greek text, in spite of the fact he was encouraged to do so.

Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Purpose of the Novum Instrumentum, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, Spring 1996, p. 44, 45

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Koons]

In his [James White] interview with Steve Anderson, Dr. White specifically speaks against the NIV.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8

Jack

 

[now faith]

I do not follow Steven Anderson,unless he is being removed from his car screaming like a girl after showing arrogance to the police.

Nevertheless at a Bible museum in Phoenix there was a discussion between him and the curator about both text in same Bible showing error in the Latin Vulgate

 

[now faith]

Not necessarily.



Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Purpose of the Novum Instrumentum, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, Spring 1996, p. 44, 45

God Bless

Till all are one.

This is also in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal:

Upon receiving a copy of Erasmus’ Latin Greek NT, John Colet responded: “The name of Erasmus shall never perish.”89 His “prophecy” has proved to be true for nearly 500 years. His “Textus Receptus” was the standard form of the Greek Text until challenged in the nineteenth century, but, as has been noted, still has many defenders in fundamental circles. Greenlee has wisely observed: “The TR is not a ‘bad’ or misleading text, either theologically or practically.”90 No one will be led into theological error from using the TR, either directly or in a translation based on it (e.g., KJV and NKJV). But is it, as Waite believes, “the exact words of the originals themselves”? Hardly! It is based on a few very late manuscripts, and in some cases has no Greek manuscript support whatever. Without question it is possible to produce a text which is closer to the autographs by comparing the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts available today. Fundamentalists should reject the attempts by some in our movement to make the TR the only acceptable form of Greek text. ____________________ 86Vaganay, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 134. Scrivener

We know at the time of the Apostles Greek was the common language,it is up to the individual to decide what text is more trustworthy the Roman or Alexandrian.

 

[now faith]

King James Bible - The Translators
Of the original 54 men chosen to translate the King James Bible, only 47 finished the more than seven-year project, which was governed by very strict rules of translation. The translators were scholarly men who were experts in the biblical languages, and they were convinced of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."

The planning of the translation project stipulated that the translators should be broken up into six panels, and each panel was given certain books of the Bible to translate. After the translations were done, a committee of 12-two translators from each of the six panels-reviewed the work based on a detailed set of guidelines that was established to ensure that the translators' personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version.

- See more at: King James Bible

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Really ...

Yes, really, you can even hear about the portion of the endoresment of James' "Trinity" book by Jesuit Pacwa, in his debate with Jesuit Pacwa. Though I like James [and have seen much of his materials], I think he is funny/serious in a witty way, but be careful of him, for some of his material is also not fully based, but only partially based and therefore in error, and also of the Calvinistic portions though that is not the focus here.

The Following Link and materials therein * may be useful for those considering the MSS** of, and/or other [generally corrupted/altered/'emended'] MSS other than, those found as the basis of the King James Bible:

The King James Bible Vindicated

* Use caution when considering the various materials, judge according to the Law and to the Testimony [Isaiah 8:20], for not everything therein is Seventh-day Adventist scholarship and may carry an individuals/groups unScriptural doctrine here or there, which is of course to be rejected/reproved in Charity.

**MSS is short for Manuscripts.

This Link or this Link may be used for anyone of the Roman Catholic faith [of which I used to be, 30 years, born, raised, confirmed, etc]

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not a KJV only supporter. My KJV does in fact contain all the books that are canonical in a Catholic bible but the KJV arranges them differently. There are some passages in the KJV that are very poorly written for readers today. I'll give an example or two below.

• In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. Isaiah 3:18-23
• O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. Corinthians 6:11-13

 

[classicalhero]

Well then, why not throw all the manuscripts away because all show kind of scribal work done to them?

No two Greek manuscripts, read exactly the same, none.

God Bless

Till all are one.

There is a difference between variant reading and scribal error. I am surprised you never would have thought that out? What I showed was clear error.

Another problem is clear edited verse so that they fit false doctrine. John 1:1-18 is the best case to see if a manuscript has been altered to fit false doctrine. To try and fit the doctrine of gnosticism, that Jesus and Christ are two different persons in changing the phrase "only begotten son" to "only begotten god", which makes a massive difference, but the weird thing is that they focused so much on that passage, since it is the clearest passage describing the deity of Jesus. They don't change the phrase in John 3:16 which shows their bias because the John 3 passage isn't as clear as the John 1:18 passage is but they are the only times that phrase is used in the Bible.

Two thing things a good Bible needs is to be translated from the Greek majority texts(The Byzantine texts) and to be a mostly formal equivalence, but understanding that translating from 3 different languages makes a 100% translation that way impossible, but it should be done as much as possible while making sense in the language translated into.

 

[DeaconDean]

There is a difference between variant reading and scribal error. I am surprised you never would have thought that out? What I showed was clear error.

Another problem is clear edited verse so that they fit false doctrine. John 1:1-18 is the best case to see if a manuscript has been altered to fit false doctrine. To try and fit the doctrine of gnosticism, that Jesus and Christ are two different persons in changing the phrase "only begotten son" to "only begotten god", which makes a massive difference, but the weird thing is that they focused so much on that passage, since it is the clearest passage describing the deity of Jesus. They don't change the phrase in John 3:16 which shows their bias because the John 3 passage isn't as clear as the John 1:18 passage is but they are the only times that phrase is used in the Bible.

Two thing things a good Bible needs is to be translated from the Greek majority texts(The Byzantine texts) and to be a mostly formal equivalence, but understanding that translating from 3 different languages makes a 100% translation that way impossible, but it should be done as much as possible while making sense in the language translated into.

See, I agreed with you up until this point.

I used to agree on the Western/Byzantine text, but since reading Gordon Fee's 1966 thesis "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism", I disagree.

And I disagree on the MT. (Majority Text)

A majority voted for our president, and see what that got us.

A majority isn't always the right way to go.

Israel found that out.

God Bless

Till all are one.