Authorised King James Version

Status
Not open for further replies.

Apologist

2 Tim. 2:24-26
Jan 9, 2002
1,294
11
62
Northern California
Visit site
✟1,980.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Rjano21

Then I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NIV eliminates or downplays most references to sodomy (they had 2 homosexuals on the comittee). They certainly didn't pick and choose their omissions based on manuscript evidence.


That is a false statement. There was one female homosexual on the committee and she had nothing to do with the translation. She was dismissed when she was found to be a lesbian so your argument is invalid.
Let me use your logic here:
What about the fact that King James was a homosexual? Does that mean the KJV is tainted because of his involvement in the KJV? Bad arguments.
 
Upvote 0

SenseiPiccolo

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2002
1,524
0
43
✟3,236.00
Originally posted by Rjano21


Just depends on which "Greek" you refer to. The KJV is a 100% accurate and literal translation of the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional Greek text used by the vast majority of Christians throughout history.



AMEN!!!

Which Greek?
Ofhand I can think of 48 different ones...
which one are you all refering to?

Im with Rjano21 on this behalf
:)
 
Upvote 0

filosofer

Senior Veteran
Feb 8, 2002
4,752
290
Visit site
✟6,913.00
Faith
Lutheran
Any scholar can tell you that the text type of the Textus Receptus is the same exact text in the majority of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts in existance.
Sorry, but I am one who will tell you that the TR is not the exact same text as the Majority Text. And so will any other scholar.

Like I said before, out of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts known today, 99% of the readings therein AGREE with the Textus Receptus. Like it or not, that's a documented fact. Erasmus may have used 7 manuscripts for his TR, but those were representative of the vast majority he already knew about.
In the above quote you claim that it is the "same exact text", now it is only 99% the same. So which is it?

I know that the last verse (1John 5:7) isn't in the majority of Greek texts, but that's a whole different discussion. It is in the majority of Latin manuscripts including the old Latin (150 A.D.), and also quoted by several early writers and councils. The reason for its omission from the Byzantine Greek was probably to combat a heresy called Sabellianism... but that's another story.
So, now the rules change? First, everything has to agree with the TR, but when there is a passage in the KJV does doesn't agree with the TR, well then what - oh, right, "that's another story."

I guess I should have said the KJV is a 99.99% literal and accurate translation of the TR, as there are a few exceptions to the rule, not without reason.
And your basis for claiming this?

You're somewhat correct, the translators themselves don't usually do that. The textual critics, who make things like the Nestle/Aland or UBS Greek texts, are the guilty ones. Wescott and Hort did exactly the things which you said above. For decades these 2 "scholars" picked and chose what they thought the Bible said (or should say), and made their own Greek text out of it. This text then served as a basis for all the New Age Bibles we have today.
So have you done any comparisons of manuscripts? What do you make of the evidence - that is, the fact that no two manuscripts agree completely?

When they omit or bracket nearly 100 words based on 1 lousy manuscript (Luke 24), that is unreasonable. A good number of their footnotes are deceptive, like the ones which say "some manuscripts do not have..." when the truth really is "all manuscripts have this, except 1 or 2"
"lousy manuscript" - and how did you arrive at that conclusion? Have you analyzed the manuscript? Have you examined the evidence? As for being deceptive in the footnotes, you might want to read the footnotes and explanations a little more carefully.
 
Upvote 0
I guess I should have said the KJV is a 99.99% literal and accurate translation of the TR, as there are a few exceptions to the rule, not without reason.

If there are execeptions and it is only 99.99% accurate and literal, then how is the King James Bible perfect and infallible?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Navigator
For many years the Catholic Church didn't want the bible in the common man's vernacular... Guttenberg's press and courageous translators like Tyndale changed the tide, and started producing common man's language Bibles, while the Catholic Church demanded that it be in Latin.


Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...not quite.

Until Gutenburg (who was Catholic, BTW) invented moveable type, Bibles were too EXPENSIVE for the "common man" to AFFORD. The expense explains why the big, hand-printed and illustrated Bibles were chained up.

from What Catholics Really Believe by Karl Keating
The earliest precursor to the English-language Bible was a paraphrase of Genesis written around 670 in Anglo-Saxon by Caedmon. Bede, who died in 735, translated into Anglo-Saxon at least the Gospel of John. There were several editions of the Bible in Middle English.

It is wrong to think the Bible was KEPT in Latin so common people couldn't read it. Until sometime in the nineteenth century, every well-schooled person in the West could read Latin, and at the time of the Reformation nearly everyone who could read AT ALL could read Latin. Since nearly all readers read Latin, keeping the Bible in Latin was no burden and certainly did nothing to stifle the circulation of Scripture.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by edjones
Authorized King James Holy Bible

The Bible was the first Book ever printed on a press. The first one was printed on the Gutenberg press in the 1450's. The first American printing was in an Indian language in 1663.


I've read through this ENTIRE Looney-Toon thread, and I'm actually kicking myself for doing that.

Hello, Ed?

Gutenberg was a CATHOLIC, and the Bible he printed couldn't have been your precious AKJV!!



Now, ED...

I saw something at the VERY BEGINNING of the thread, and you have conveniently ignored it! The 1611 edition of the KJV INCLUDED THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS.

What happened to those? Why were they inspired in 1611, but not today?

And what about the verse in Revelation, that you should neither add nor take away from Scripture?

tsk tsk tsk tsk...

You're really hurting your credibility, Ed.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

edjones

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2002
699
0
✟1,549.00
While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people. For an excellent overview of this, read the classic work, "The Trail of Blood," at one of these websites:


http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/baphist/blood/trail.htm
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
68
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mark 7:3 (AKJV)
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Mark 7:3 (NAS)
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

Mark 7:3(AKJV as it was translated in 1611)
For the Pharises and all the Iewes, except they wash their hands ||oft, eate not, holding the tradition of the elders {margin note || or diligently; in the originall - with the fist. Theophilact, up to the elbowe }

Reading the 1611 version of the AKJV is most illuminating - though very hard to do for long periods of time due to the print quality and the spelling variations. Note how the NAS, with regard to Mark 7:3, is less at variance with the AKJV of 1611 than it is with the AKJV of today.

Jeremiah 34:16 (AKJV 1611)
and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...."
Jeremiah 34:16 (AKJV)...
and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty....
Just which AKJV is it that is the wholly without error and inspired? Is it the 1611 King James or the current King James. This change of "you" to "he" is precisely the kind of thing that the King James Onlyites are so froth mouthed about, saying that such changes are Satanic. Unless of course, the modern King James is the "Only Approved of God" Bible...which then would make the 1611 King James Satanic, (by the rules declared by the King James Onlyites to be true) ... but that would make the current King James a derivative of the Satanic 1611 (by the king james onlyites rules) version.

Past time these people should wake up and realise the truth of what the translators of the AKJV themselves said (in writing, in the preface to the AKJV of 1611). ... that "the Bible remains the word of God, no matter how poor the translation."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If there are execeptions and it is only 99.99% accurate and literal, then how is the King James Bible perfect and infallible?

99.99% accurate to the TR is what I said. Not once did I say or imply that the entire TR is the infallible word of God, it's merely the best Greek text tradition in existance. The KJV differs with the TR in a few places, but in those certain places they have ample reason to correctly do so.

"the Bible remains the word of God, no matter how poor the translation."

There's a difference between a poor and a false translation.

Isa 9:3 KJV: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy..."

Isa 9:3 NIV: "You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy"

These 2 translations are polar opposite in meaning, they cannot both be true. So how can a lie be God's word?

Philippians 2:6 KJV: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

Philippians 2:6 NASV: "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Here we find another verse which cannot be God's word in both versions. In the KJV this verse affirms the deity of Christ; in the NAS it denies the deity of Christ. That's not a poor translation, its a false translation.

What happened to those? Why were they inspired in 1611, but not today?

All you have to do is a little research to find out that those books were included between the old and new testaments as a historical document, not as scripture. The catholic Bible I have sticks the apocrypha in with the rest of the books.

Until Gutenburg (who was Catholic, BTW) invented moveable type, Bibles were too EXPENSIVE for the "common man" to AFFORD

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the Roman Church outlawed commoners from having Bibles. The Bible was placed on the index of forbidden books at the Council of Trent. Look that one up yourself. They knew they'd lose control of the people once everyone knew what the Bible had to say.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.