Six Lies Modern Scholarship Tells Us

Unix · Jun 23, 2014

If I don't get rid of cherised words (which is possible without versions similar or equal to the KJB, NKJV, 1865/1866 Common English Version New Testament which btw was popular), am I OK then or not? Or do I still have to rely on English language tools for the KJB and use it only no matter what even if I have a hard time understanding it and can't know which words have changed their meaning? What about 15 years from now - by that time I will have authored a book if not sooner, should I quote the KJB only in my book?:

brandplucked said:
If you can get rid of these words, then you can get rid of anything in your fake bible versions that not even you believe are the complete and infallible words of God.

SwordoftheLord · Jul 2, 2014

Unix said:
Exactly, and I don't get it why the only modern textually mediating unbiased version shouldn't be used, with tools, for any of the Pauline Epistles! I was never taught King James English in school, and if/when I (would) take an English class at uni I would still not/still won't be taught it:

What does a King James English class have anything to do with it? It is amazing that people always seem to use the excuse that the English used in the KJV is harder to read or understand than say the ESV or NIV.

from The Truth About the English Standard Version (ESV)
We “scientifically and grammatically” compared the ESV to the archaic, hard-to-understand King James Bible.
Note: To prove and validate our results. Anyone with a PC, a Bible Program, and WordPerfect can easily (in less than 30 minutes) duplicate the following tests.
Utilizing Quickverse Bible software, we copied the complete New Testament text of the King James Bible and the ESV into text files. With no modifications, no editing, but exactly as they came from Quickverse, we opened the KJB and the ESV New Testament text files in Corel Wordperfect. We then simply performed the Grammar checking function within WordPerfect.
Note: The WordPerfect Grammar checking function uses the authoritative and industry-standard Flesch-Kincaid readability scale formulas. Rudolf Flesch is the pioneer of Readability studies and author of several readability books, including the best-selling "Why Johnny Can’t Read". Without question, Dr. Flesch is the recognized authority in this discipline.

And what was the result? The King James Bible literally “blew the doors off” the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie

You can see the results by clicking on the link above

Not only is the ESV a harder reading level, the NIV, RSV, and others are also.

Then you have the archaic words that everyone seems to blast the KJV with. But they fail to realize their modern versions also have archaic words. Here below is link to list from the NIV and compared the the easier reading words that KJV uses in the same verses: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

NIV

Unix · Jul 3, 2014

Well I'm really not used to most of the old English as old as the 18th century. Even 19th century English throws me off. I wouldn't use a version such as the 1901 ASV as it throws me off. The RSV has significantly more modern English than the ASV despite that it's originally not that many decades newer.
Versions such as the 1865/1866 Common English Version New Testament, 18th century KJV, 1901 ASV just have too many dated words so it's not worth the effort. Also, even if I would correctly learn say 50 of the dated words in the ASV or KJV I would have little to no use for that vocabulary skill as I read very few books that are that old. I have for example the Early Church Fathers Edition which is from the late 19th century, but I use it less and less and I have a recent anthology which is a much more pleasant read. Really, anthologies and technical books in modern English are much more fruitful to read.
I'm not sure You understand if You don't live in Europe (I didn't check where You live, but Your statements don't sound like coming from a European). In Europe, especially in countries outside the United Kingdom and Ireland, I don't think any of the countries focus on old English. I'm lucky if I will get to take that English class within a few years and learn some of the English of the 1971 RSV. I might take the first English class in uni in the Spring semester 2015, it's a full-time class. But I will have to ask whether I would get to learn any of the 20th century English or if they focus solely on the late 20th and early 21st century now.
Also, the RSV is not the only version I use. I also use the REB - compare that one to the NIV, ESV and KJV!:

SwordoftheLord said:
What does a King James English class have anything to do with it? It is amazing that people always seem to use the excuse that the English used in the KJV is harder to read or understand than say the ESV or NIV.
[...]
And what was the result? The King James Bible literally blew the doors off the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie

You can see the results by clicking on the link above

Not only is the ESV a harder reading level, the NIV, RSV, and others are also.

Then you have the archaic words that everyone seems to blast the KJV with. But they fail to realize their modern versions also have archaic words. Here below is link to list from the NIV and compared the the easier reading words that KJV uses in the same verses

SwordoftheLord · Jul 4, 2014

Unix said:
Well I'm really not used to most of the old English as old as the 18th century. Even 19th century English throws me off. I wouldn't use a version such as the 1901 ASV as it throws me off. The RSV has significantly more modern English than the ASV despite that it's originally not that many decades newer.
Versions such as the 1865/1866 Common English Version New Testament, 18th century KJV, 1901 ASV just have too many dated words so it's not worth the effort. Also, even if I would correctly learn say 50 of the dated words in the ASV or KJV I would have little to no use for that vocabulary skill as I read very few books that are that old. I have for example the Early Church Fathers Edition which is from the late 19th century, but I use it less and less and I have a recent anthology which is a much more pleasant read. Really, anthologies and technical books in modern English are much more fruitful to read.
I'm not sure You understand if You don't live in Europe (I didn't check where You live, but Your statements don't sound like coming from a European). In Europe, especially in countries outside the United Kingdom and Ireland, I don't think any of the countries focus on old English. I'm lucky if I will get to take that English class within a few years and learn some of the English of the 1971 RSV. I might take the first English class in uni in the Spring semester 2015, it's a full-time class. But I will have to ask whether I would get to learn any of the 20th century English or if they focus solely on the late 20th and early 21st century now.
Also, the RSV is not the only version I use. I also use the REB - compare that one to the NIV, ESV and KJV!:

Even when looking at the NIV (which is a very popular "modern english" version has archaic words such as: "wadi" in Numbers 34:5 (KJV is River) or "vassal" in 2 Kings 24:1 (KJV uses Servant) and many others. heres a list for those also compared to their KJV counterpart. Archaic Words in the NIV

brandplucked · Jul 4, 2014

Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

Try giving this vocabulary list to most high schoolers today and see if they can pass the test.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire, dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebbed, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hot dogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

There are many cases where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJB. Compare the following: The NIV has abasement in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJB has heaviness. Isaiah 24:23: abashed (NIV) = confounded (KJB). Ezekiel 40:18: abutted (NIV) = over against (KJB). 2 Chronicles 15:14: acclamation (NIV) = voice (KJB). Isaiah 13:8: aghast (NIV) = amazed (KJB) Psalm 107:5 "ebbed away" (NIV) = "fainted" (KJB). A personal favorite is squall (NIV) instead of storm (KJB) in Mark 4:37.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry and in the NIV it would be: The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

brandplucked · Jul 4, 2014

Well, how about the New KJV? Can you pass this vocabulary test even with a few of my "helpful hints"? Let's see.

The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

Harder Words in the NKJV (provided by Sam Gipp)

Reference____________AV 1611____________NKJV
Gen 9:9 _____________seed___________ _____decendants
Gen. 18:1____________plains________ _______terebinth trees
Gen. 35:4____________oak___________ ______terebinth tree
Lev. 4:11 ____________dung________________offal
Dt. 15:7______________coney_______________rock hyrax
Dt. 28:50_____________old_________________eldery
Josh. 22:24___________children______________decendants
Jud. 8:13_____________sun was up___________Ascent of Heres
Ruth 4:5______________raise up______________perpetuate
1Sam. 13:21___________file_________________pim
1Sam. 16:16___________evil_________________distressing
1Sam. 22:6____________tree_________________tamanisk tree
2Sam. 6:5_____________cornet_______________sistrums
1Kg. 10:2_____________train_________________retinue
2Kg. 12:5_____________breach_______________dilapidation
Ecd. 2.3______________give_________________gratify
Isa. 13:12_____________man_________________mortal
Isa. 28:1,4_____________fat__________________verdant
Isa. 34:14_____________screech owl___________night creature
Jer. 19:3______________evil_________________catastrophe
Jer. 36:6______________mouth_______________instructions
Dan.1:17______________learning_____________literature
Dan. 6:2_______________princes__________________satraps
Hos. 4:13______________elms___________________terebinths
Matt. 21:15____________displeased______________indignant
Matt. 23:25____________excess_________________self-indulgence
Luke 7:1_______________much__________________earnestly
Luke 8:31______________ended__________________concluded
Luke 12:14_____________the deep________________the abyss
Luke 21:5______________divider__________________arbitrator
John 2:10______________gifts____________________donations
John 4:12______________worse__________________inferior
John 9:8_______________cattle__________________livestock
John 10:41_____________before__________________previously
Acts 5:7_______________did____________________performed
Acts 5:14______________more___________________increasingly
Acts 10:1______________band___________________Regiment
Acts 27:21_____________quick sands_____________Syrtis sands
Rom. 10:12_____________difference_______________distinction
2Cor. 5:2_______________house__________________habitation
Titus 1:6_______________riot_____________________dissipation
Titus 1:6_______________unruly__________________insubordination

So you see, besides the very serious textual matter, the modern versions also have words hard to be understood. Try giving this list of words as a vocabulary test and see if your son or daughter, or even yourself gets a passing score.

There is a huge battle going on today about the Bible. We are headed for the falling away, the apostasy, which will occur before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgment. This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.

The explosion of multiple-choice, conflicting modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2014

brandplucked said:
There is a huge battle going on today about the Bible. We are headed for the falling away, the apostasy, which will occur before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgment. This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.

That's because the churches aren't teaching the Scriptures effectively overall. That has nothing to do with the translations or their source manuscripts.

The explosion of multiple-choice, conflicting modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

I would say a far more dangerous tendency to ignore the actual message. There's not that much wrong with the KJV, the NIV is a fine translation, that's not the problem. When you think about it when someone decides to become a Christian it's usually from interaction with people of faith, from faith to faith, so to speak. When the Gospel is received the Holy Spirit makes the believer a 'new creation', and shows you the things of Christ.

One of the things your provided with your salvation promise is insight into the purposes and wisdom of the Living God. Once matured, the believer bears fruit in the form of a sanctified life and a living witness. One of the things Christians have cherished above all our scholarship and academics has been the Apostolic witness of the New Testament.

Before you criticize the Scriptures for archaic language you should take a more serious look at the actual message. You might also want to consider the longevity of our sacred texts and the meticulous scholarship that makes the Scriptures the best preserved documents from antiquity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

SwordoftheLord · Jul 4, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Before you criticize the Scriptures for archaic language you should take a more serious look at the actual message. You might also want to consider the longevity of our sacred texts and the meticulous scholarship that makes the Scriptures the best preserved documents from antiquity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Those of us that hold to the KJV do not criticize other versions for archaic language, it is those who hold to "modern" versions (NIV, ESV RSV, etc...) who do that to the KJV, as was done earlier in this post. All we did was show that those "modern" versions also have just as many archaic words.

EddardStark · Jul 5, 2014

brandplucked said:
The gospel is still found even in your corrupt bibles

Indeed, the Gospel is still found, even in the KJV, outdated and inferior as it is.

mark kennedy · Jul 5, 2014

EddardStark said:
Indeed, the Gospel is still found, even in the KJV, outdated and inferior as it is.

Yet for 400 years Christians have learned and lived the gospel from the KJV. There is nothing wrong with the KJV and unlike the modern translations you get more not less. What makes the proclamation or publication of the Gospel credible is the authenticity that comes from the body of Christ.

SwordoftheLord said:
Those of us that hold to the KJV do not criticize other versions for archaic language, it is those who hold to "modern" versions (NIV, ESV RSV, etc...) who do that to the KJV, as was done earlier in this post. All we did was show that those "modern" versions also have just as many archaic words.

There's more going on then that, the KJV and TR are deprecated in modern scholarship. It's not over how words are translated or if they are modern enough, the question is whether we get more or less from the text critical approach. Invariably we get less. As far as I'm concerned the text critical and 'Higher Criticism' vein of modern Christian academics is just another attempt to deprecate the Scriptures. There is nothing wrong with the KJV, a 400 year track record is unrivaled. These modern versions and the philosophical basis for Christian Modernism are about 150 years old. The credibility test for me is the effect on the body of Christ.

King James had virtually nothing to do with the translation, he sanctioned and supported it. Something like 85% of the KJV was the work of William Tyndale and the Geneva Bible predates the KJV by about 50 years and there isn't a dimes worth of difference.

People who want to deprecate the KJV simply have nothing as good to replace it with but who knows, maybe in a couple hundred years they can get caught up.

Grace and peace,
Mark

EddardStark · Jul 5, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Yet for 400 years Christians have learned and lived the gospel from the KJV.

By that definition, you should hail the Vulgata as the real shebang!

For about 1000 years, this was the Bible from which Christians "learned and lived the Gospel".

mark kennedy said:
There is nothing wrong with the KJV

There's LOTS wrong with the KJV. And the archaic language isn't the worst of what's wrong with it.

mark kennedy said:
and unlike the modern translations you get more not less.

Yes....more fabrications, more additions to the text that weren't there in the most reliable manuscripts we have acces to, etc.
Hey, why not the ESV? Same exact arguments!

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

EddardStark said:
Indeed, the Gospel is still found, even in the KJV, outdated and inferior as it is.

See... blanket statements like these with no value, nor study is why I rarely debate on forums anymore...

Outdated and Inferior???? Yet you offer no proof? LOL...... The KJV is far from outdated and inferior....

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

EddardStark said:
By that definition, you should hail the Vulgata as the real shebang!
For about 1000 years, this was the Bible from which Christians "learned and lived the Gospel".

There's LOTS wrong with the KJV. And the archaic language isn't the worst of what's wrong with it.

Yes....more fabrications, more additions to the text that weren't there in the most reliable manuscripts we have acces to, etc.
Hey, why not the ESV? Same exact arguments!

Yet again no proof...... LOTS wrong with the KJV? Doubt it....

More fabrications? yet again no proof... just blanket statement nonsense from someone who has no clue whatsoever...

Most reliable manuscripts? Sorry bud that nonsense wont work on me. The KJV agrees with around 95+%, (hence the term Majority text)and the Modern versions use around 1%, and among those 1% we have the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which disagree with each other some 3000 times....)

More reliable we have access to? Yeah right.....a argument from James White, that has been proven false so many times it isnt even funny. Matter of fact even some non KJVO scholars have admitted that

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

Where did the King James Bible come from?

Facts About the Vaticanus
It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:
Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
Psalms 106-138
Matthew 16:2-3
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews 9:14-13:25
Revelation
These parts were probably left out on purpose.
Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.
The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

Facts About the Sinaiticus
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."

That's not all!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!
That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.
They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.
When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do not conThe evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.
The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.
That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?
You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.
tain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities," they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!
Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.
But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

hedrick · Jul 5, 2014

SwordoftheLord said:
But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

A bit of an exaggeration. From Metzger:

"Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).3 Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

Summarizing:

"Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 continue after verse 8" with a shorter ending following by the traditional one.

The vast majority have the traditional ending.

"In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form"

This is not consistent with א and B simply being damaged or "corrupted."

mark kennedy · Jul 5, 2014

SwordoftheLord said:
Most reliable manuscripts? Sorry bud that nonsense wont work on me. The KJV agrees with around 95+%, (hence the term Majority text)and the Modern versions use around 1%, and among those 1% we have the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which disagree with each other some 3000 times....)

Exactly, I wonder why something so obvious is so hard for Modernists.

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

hedrick said:
A bit of an exaggeration. From Metzger:

"Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).3 Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

Summarizing:

"Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 continue after verse 8" with a shorter ending following by the traditional one.

The vast majority have the traditional ending.

"In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form"

This is not consistent with א and B simply being damaged or "corrupted."

So your saying we should go off just the two oldest greek manuscripts? (Although those two are in disagreement with each other many times as I already mentioned above, and the KJV translators already had access to one of them and did not use it)? Instead of the Majority of those that do have the ending in Mark? Oldest does not always mean the best. Even during Pauls times, there were groups perverting the word...

or are you just mentioning what you believe to be a small Exaggeration?

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

also incase anyone wants to know the unicals we are mentioning:

you can find them here: List of New Testament uncials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the ones mentioned by hendrick ( B and א ) which are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

mark kennedy · Jul 5, 2014

hedrick said:
A bit of an exaggeration. From Metzger:

"Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).3 Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

Yet all modern translations have it.

Summarizing:

"Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 continue after verse 8" with a shorter ending following by the traditional one.

The vast majority have the traditional ending.

"In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form"

Interesting...

This is not consistent with א and B simply being damaged or "corrupted."

They are relics, wonderful relics but they are not the same thing as the received or the majority text.

SwordoftheLord · Jul 5, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Exactly, I wonder why something so obvious is so hard for Modernists.

I have always wondered the same thing... but I always get the runaround, or the mention that since they are the "oldest" then they must be the best.... which is honestly a ignorant argument. Especially knowing there were heretical groups already writing their own stuff during the time of Paul himself.

Six Lies Modern Scholarship Tells Us

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Defender of the Faith

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Defender of the Faith

Member

Member

Natura non facit saltum

Defender of the Faith

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Natura non facit saltum

Defender of the Faith

Similar threads