Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

afishamongmany said:

Hi Jason - Like you after many years I have come to see and use KJV as the starting and returning point for my Bible reading and studying. KJV only? No. KJV as the benchmark? Definately.
Certainly as far as the N.T. is concerned, an understanding of the differences (textual, origins and historical usage) between the two bodies of greek texts used in the different translations is crucial to making a right judgement as to the reliability of those different translations.
For anyone seriously wanting to understand these differences I would highly recommend spending time and energy looking into what this guy has to say.
Just to add - What is the logic behind the assertion that, those manuscripts which are older and more numerous must necessarily be the most reliable??
To all who read, Go well.
><>

Conclusion (from The Identity of the new Testement Text II – Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD) www.walkinhiscommandments.com

To sum it up, I return to the opening question: "What difference does it make?" Not only do we have the confusion caused by two rather different competing forms of the Greek text, but one of them (the eclectic text) incorporates errors and contradictions that undermine the doctrine of inspiration and virtually vitiate the doctrine of inerrancy; the other (the Majority Text) does not. The first is based on subjective criteria, applied by naturalistic critics; the second is based on the consensus of the manuscript tradition down through the centuries.

Because the conservative evangelical schools and churches have generally embraced the theory (and therefore the presuppositions) that underlies the eclectic text (UBS3/Nestle26), there has been an ongoing hemorrhage or defection within the evangelical camp with reference to the doctrines of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy (especially). The authority of Scripture has been undermined —it no longer commands immediate and unquestioned obedience. As a natural consequence there is a generalized softening of our basic commitment to Christ and His Kingdom. Worse yet, through our missionaries we have been exporting all of this to the emerging churches in the "third world". Alas!

So what shall we do, throw up our hands in despair and give up? Indeed no! "It is better to light one candle than to sit and curse the darkness." With God's help let us work together to bring about a reversal of this situation. Let us work to undo the damage. We must start by consciously trying to make sure that all our presuppositions, our working assumptions, are consistent with God's Word. When we approach the evidence (Greek MSS, patristic citations, ancient versions) with such presuppositions we will have a credible, even demonstrable, basis for declaring and defending the divine preservation, the inspiration and the inerrancy of the New Testament text. We can again have a compelling basis for total commitment to God and His Word.

The present printed Majority Text is a close approximation to the original, free from the errors of fact and contradictions discussed above. Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text.

Click to expand...

far as I know, all of the scholars that worked on the Nas/Esv/Niv/Csb affirmed verbal plenery inspiration/inerrancy of the original scriptures!

The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is based on 12th century or later Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV was written 400 years ago there have been far more Greek manuscripts discovered, dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Which is the more likely to contain errors - a copy of a copy of the original? or a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original?

The problem with the Majority Text principle is if a document with an error has formed the basis for hundreds of other copies with the same error, it skews the selection process in favor of the error. A better process is to prioritize the age of the document, with the earlier ones being considered more reliable as they are less likely to have been 'improved' by copyists (well intentioned or otherwise).

swordsman1 said:

The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is based on 12th century or later Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV was written 400 years ago there have been far more Greek manuscripts discovered, dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Which is the more likely to contain errors - a copy of a copy of the original? or a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original?

The problem with the Majority Text principle is if a document with an error has formed the basis for hundreds of other copies with the same error, it skews the selection process in favor of the error. A better process is to prioritize the age of the document, with the earlier ones being considered more reliable as they are less likely to have been 'improved' by copyists (well intentioned or otherwise).

Click to expand...

Quotations of scripture that are found in the KJV and not other bibles based upon the minority text are found in the writings of the early church fathers, dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They quoted scriptures that are omitted in the Alexandrian text types, proving that the majority text was around earlier and far more in use than the other minority texts. The reason why the old minority texts are still in decent shape to be read is because no one used them: they were understood to be corruptions of God’s Word. The majority of manuscripts that were used were worn out and copied over and over again because they were being used and the other manuscripts were not.

If you research this, you’ll find it to be true.

swordsman1 said:

The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is based on 12th century or later Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV was written 400 years ago there have been far more Greek manuscripts discovered, dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Which is the more likely to contain errors - a copy of a copy of the original? or a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original?

The problem with the Majority Text principle is if a document with an error has formed the basis for hundreds of other copies with the same error, it skews the selection process in favor of the error. A better process is to prioritize the age of the document, with the earlier ones being considered more reliable as they are less likely to have been 'improved' by copyists (well intentioned or otherwise).

Click to expand...

The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places. The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect. Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.
Part One

"It was the CORRUPT BYZANTINE form of text that provided the basis for almost all translations of the New Testament into modern languages down to the nineteenth century." This quote is from Bruce Metzger's book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. On the same page, he also calls the Byzantine text-type "disfigured" and the Textus Receptus (TR), which is based upon it, "debased" (p.xxiii).

In a similar vein, Kurt Aland considers Greek manuscripts which are "purely or predominately Byzantine" to be "IRRELEVANT for textual criticism."

Furthermore, Aland refers to the Critical Text (CT) as "the modern SCHOLARLY text." This is because it is based mainly on the Alexandrian text-type, which he believes to be "of A VERY SPECIAL QUALITY which should always be considered in establishing the original text." And Aland considers this type of text to be the "Standard text" for our day (Aland, pp.viii,31,155).

It was Erasmus' Greek Testament, "... that Martin Luther and William Tyndale used as the basis of their translations of the New Testament into German (1522) and into English (1525)" (Metzger, pp. xxi-xxiii).

Moreover, every English translation after Tyndale, until 1881, followed the Byzantine text-type. This, or course, included the monumental King James Version. Further, "Even though the Revised Version of 1881 was intended to replace the KJV, it failed to do so" (Green, MKJV press release).

Desiderius Erasmus, born 1466 in the Dutch town of Gouda, was the second illegitimate son of a local Priest. He took monastic vows at the age of 21, and was himself ordained a Priest at the age of 26. A largely self-taught classical scholar, he began to take an interest in the Greek New Testament around the age of 34, and at the age of 39 published an edition of Valla's Annotations on the New Testament. His first edition of the Greek New Testament appeared in 1516, when he was 50 years old.

Sources: Erasmus' Greek text was based upon [only] three of the cursive manuscripts readily available to him in Basle. [None earlier than the 10th cent.]

They are (as designated by the notation of Scrivener and Miller 1894): Evan. 2 (15th cent.); Act.Paul. 2 (13th to 14th cent.); and Apoc. 1 (12th cent.). He sometimes adopted readings found in three other cursives also at Basle: Evan.Act.Paul. 1 (10th to 13th cent.); Act.Paul. 4 (15th cent.); and Paul. 7 (date undetermined).

For his second edition (1519) he evidently consulted the cursive Evan.Act.Paul. 3 (12th century). He also made much use of his notes on various readings of the Latin Vulgate, of Patristic quotations, and of other (unspecified) Greek copies he had met with over the years, which he had compiled in preparation for his revision of the Latin Vulgate.

The cursive manuscript Apoc. 1, his only Greek source for the book of Revelation, was scarcely legible in places, and it lacked the final leaf containing the last six verses of the book.

The Annotations show that quotations from the early Latin ecclesiastical writers (called Fathers) were often decisive in his choice of readings, despite lack of support in Greek copies.

For example, Acts 8:37 (And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God) has almost no Greek manuscript support, but Erasmus inserted it because it was in the Vulgate, with some support from the Fathers, and in the margin of one of his copies.

In Acts 9:5-6, the words it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him are imported from Acts 26:14 and 22:10, and appear in no Greek copy at all here, although they are represented in the Vulgate, with some support from the Fathers.

On the other hand, Erasmus rejected the testimony of the Vulgate in a very important doctrinal passage: in 1 John 5:7-8 the words in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, which express the doctrine of the Trinity more clearly than any in Scripture, are omitted in Erasmus' first two editions.

In the book of Revelation he frankly resorted to conjecture in places, supplying Greek words by translation from Latin sources. Some of these factitious readings passed into the later texts of Estienne, Elzevir, and Beza, and are represented in the King James version.

In his third edition (1522) Erasmus inserted the so-called Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7, not because he believed it to be authentic, but in order to "take away the handle for calumniating him which had been afforded by his honestly following his MSS. in this passage" (Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 26.

For a full discussion of the pressure Erasmus was under to insert the Comma against his better judgment see H.J. de Jonge, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980], pp. 381-389.).

The second edition (1519) was followed by Martin Luther in his German translation (1522). The third edition (1522) was used by William Tyndale in his English translation (see Tyndale 1526). The text of the fourth and fifth edition (1527, 1535) was closely followed by Robert Estienne in his influential third edition (1550), which in turn provided the basis for all editions later published by Beza (1565-98), subsequently followed by the translators of the King James version.

Jason0047 said:

There are two vines. The Critical Text (Which the Modern Translations are based upon) and the Textus Receptus. There are two sides of the debate. KJV vs. Modern Translations. There are two distinguishable differences between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. We can clearly see these changes between the two. Changes that are not for the better but for the worse when you compare the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. Only a person who is biased to a certain way of thinking (Usually those who treat scholar opinion on the original languages or the wisdom of men as being highly commended, when nobody actually knows these dead languages in recent history) will not be able to see these changes that are for the worse (in why they are bad) between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. It is odd that Wescott and Hort (who believed in known new age heresies) based their Greek New Testament of which most all Modern Translations are founded upoon.

Click to expand...

It is too bad when people are mislead by lies and think that the ways of Erasmus who rejected the testimony of the Vulgate in a very important doctrinal passage: in 1 John 5:7-8 the words in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, which express the doctrine of the Trinity more clearly than any in Scripture, are omitted in Erasmus' first two editions.

Just as the woman was mislead so are many who choose the popular way instead of the actual readings of the Bible.
Genesis 3:13 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" (12) Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." (13) And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Take for example the following:
Psalms 22:1 To the chief Musician A Psalm of David. God, God, why abandon me, so far away, and from the words of my crying?

Proverbs 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I [wisdom] set a law of a boundary upon the face of the abyss:

Isaiah 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist1 after Me.
1 * Hebrew to be, exist, be present;

Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am He; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Matthew 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of you shall come a Princedom1 that shall shepherd my people Israel.

Matthew 4:4 That your alms may be in secret: and the Father who sees in secret shall give back to you

Matthew 4:6 But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to pray to your Father in secret*; and your Father which sees in secret shall give back to you.

Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into granaries; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you rather of no value than they?

Matthew 7:8 For all who petition receives and he who searches finds; and to him to appeal, it shall be opened up.

Matthew 7:10 Or also petition for a spawner, will give him a snake?

Matthew 7:15 Watch out for imitation prophets, who come in the name of Christ to you in sheep's guise, but inside they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:16 from their fruits you shall know them. Neither gather grapes of thorns, or figs of burdock?
* bearing small burs which adhere tenaciously to clothes

Matthew 8:12 But the children of the royalty shall be ousted into the outer darkness from there shall be crying and growling of the group

Matthew 8:24 And, lo, it happened a great earthquake in the sea, so that the ship was blanketed by the swells: but he was asleep.

Matthew 8:32 And he said to them, Go. And having come out they went entering the drove of hogs: and, lo, everyone of the hogs rushed headlong, down the steep into the sea, and died in the waters.

Matthew 9:12 But hearing said, not those being strong have need of a physician, but the ones needing being in poor health

swordsman1 said:

The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is based on 12th century or later Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV was written 400 years ago there have been far more Greek manuscripts discovered, dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Which is the more likely to contain errors - a copy of a copy of the original? or a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original?

The problem with the Majority Text principle is if a document with an error has formed the basis for hundreds of other copies with the same error, it skews the selection process in favor of the error. A better process is to prioritize the age of the document, with the earlier ones being considered more reliable as they are less likely to have been 'improved' by copyists (well intentioned or otherwise).

Click to expand...

The very important thing to consider here is that regardless if one favors the TR/MT/CT, they are indeed using the very word of God to us in the Greek, and any translation made off any of them done in a proper fashion would be the English word of God to us...
That being sad, you are right here on the reason why the Critical Greek text now gets us closer back to what the originals penned down to us!

Jason0047 said:

There are two vines.

#1. Vine 1. The Critical Text (Which the Modern Translations are based upon) and
#2. Vine 2. The Textus Receptus.

There are two sides of the debate.

#1. Modern Translations vs.
#2. KJV.

There are two distinguishable differences between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. We can clearly see these changes between the two. Changes that are not for the better but for the worse when you compare the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. Only a person who is biased to a certain way of thinking (Usually those who treat scholar opinion on the original languages or the wisdom of men as being highly commended, when nobody actually knows these dead languages in recent history) will not be able to see these changes that are for the worse (in why they are bad) between the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. It is odd that Wescott and Hort (who believed in known new age heresies) based their Greek New Testament of which most all Modern Translations are founded upon. A student of God's Word who is open to seeing the subtle attacks (that actually changes the faith on a certain level) will take a stand for the truth of God's Word.

In any event, whether a person agrees or disagrees, may God bless you.

Click to expand...

Actually, it also includes the Greek majority/Bzt Greek text in this discussion, and again, there are NO essential doctrines/theology affected regardless if one using any Greek text, or any English version properly translated!

YeshuaFan said:

far as I know, all of the scholars that worked on the Nas/Esv/Niv/Csb affirmed verbal plenery inspiration/inerrancy of the original scriptures!

Click to expand...

That may well be YeshuaFan but the actual point of contention is, which greek texts do we accept (and why) as being truest to the original scriptures?

As well as W.N. Pickering's detailed and in depth exposition on the subject I also recommend T.B.S.'s article
from which the following is a quote.
"On the other hand, the Greek Received Text, upon which the New Testament of the Authorised Version is based, was produced at a time when men accepted the Bible as the inspired, errorless Word of the living God; whether working on the Greek text itself, or translating that text into English or any other language, they treated it as the very Word of God. They appreciated that through this Book, God was speaking to His people; thus they were careful not to allow theories outside the realm of Christianity to enter into their work. In this day and age, even many who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures have accepted theories of textual criticism and translation that are inconsistent with inerrancy."
from - The AV: What today’s Christian needs to know (my underlining)
Go well
><>

afishamongmany said:

That may well be YeshuaFan but the actual point of contention is, which greek texts do we accept (and why) as being truest to the original scriptures?

As well as W.N. Pickering's detailed and in depth exposition on the subject I also recommend T.B.S.'s article
from which the following is a quote.
"On the other hand, the Greek Received Text, upon which the New Testament of the Authorised Version is based, was produced at a time when men accepted the Bible as the inspired, errorless Word of the living God; whether working on the Greek text itself, or translating that text into English or any other language, they treated it as the very Word of God. They appreciated that through this Book, God was speaking to His people; thus they were careful not to allow theories outside the realm of Christianity to enter into their work. In this day and age, even many who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures have accepted theories of textual criticism and translation that are inconsistent with inerrancy."
from - The AV: What today’s Christian needs to know (my underlining)
Go well
><>

Click to expand...

Which received text would be the real one though, as there are many differing versions of it!

swordsman1 said:

The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is based on 12th century or later Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV was written 400 years ago there have been far more Greek manuscripts discovered, dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Which is the more likely to contain errors - a copy of a copy of the original? or a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original?

The problem with the Majority Text principle is if a document with an error has formed the basis for hundreds of other copies with the same error, it skews the selection process in favor of the error. A better process is to prioritize the age of the document, with the earlier ones being considered more reliable as they are less likely to have been 'improved' by copyists (well intentioned or otherwise).

Click to expand...

Ok Swordsman, it's too late here for me to deal with what you say as fully as I'd like to (maybe tomorrow) but - No, there is no logical necessity for an older copy to be more accurate than a more recent one, it may be, it may not be. Error and falsification can "get into" a text at any time, from the very first copying to the thousandth. The copying and transmission of biblical manuscripts was not some simple, chinese whispers, linear process. More important than the age of the 'hard copy' are such things as who did the copying, how well and consistent were the copies done by that person/scriptorium, was the copy accepted and widely used by churches and Christians, was it consistent with body of scripture already circulating and recognized? One cannot say this 12th century manuscript is inevitably inferior to this 3rd century one without giving sound reasons why, reasons other than "Because it's newer". That is not scholarship.
from chapter 5, page 64 of The Identity of The New Testament Text II -
"Why should modern critics assume that the early Christians, in particular the spiritual leaders among
them, were inferior in integrity or intelligence? A Father's quoting from memory or tailoring a passage to suit his purpose in sermon or letter by no means implies that he would take similar liberties when transcribing a book or corpus. Ordinary honesty would require him to produce a faithful copy. Are we to assume that everyone who made copies of New Testament books in those early years was a knave, or a fool? Paul was certainly as intelligent a man as any of us. If Hebrews was written by someone else, here was another man of high spiritual insight and intellectual power. There was Barnabas and Apollos and Clement and Polycarp, etc., etc. The Church has had men of reason and intelligence all down through the years. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, the earliest Fathers did not need to be textual critics. ..."

Go well
><>

Jason0047 said:

Click to expand...

1. Comparing the KJV with other versions is incorrect. You should compare it with the Greek manuscripts, to find out if there are words/verses that are in the KJV but not in the original; this means they will have been added. If there are words in the original but not in the KJV then they will be been omitted. I have said before that you are comparing newer versions to a book that you have already declared to be perfect - so if there are difference in the new versions, of course they are going to be considered to be the ones at fault.
You seem unable to understand/address this fundamental matter.

2. Paul has been writing about God and talks of God in 1 Timothy 3:15 - do you imagine that people are going to read that passage and think "Paul hasn't repeated the word God in this verse; is he talking about Father Christmas?" Or "Paul hasn't used the word God, I'm going to have to read back a whole verse to find out who he is talking about."?

Strong in Him said:

1. Comparing the KJV with other versions is incorrect. You should compare it with the Greek manuscripts, to find out if there are words/verses that are in the KJV but not in the original; this means they will have been added. If there are words in the original but not in the KJV then they will be been omitted. I have said before that you are comparing newer versions to a book that you have already declared to be perfect - so if there are difference in the new versions, of course they are going to be considered to be the ones at fault.
You seem unable to understand/address this fundamental matter.

2. Paul has been writing about God and talks of God in 1 Timothy 3:15 - do you imagine that people are going to read that passage and think "Paul hasn't repeated the word God in this verse; is he talking about Father Christmas?" Or "Paul hasn't used the word God, I'm going to have to read back a whole verse to find out who he is talking about."?

Click to expand...

Well, if you cannot decide, no wonder when the translations are so distorted, so try these:

Mark 6:3 Is not this person the mason, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and Juda, and Simon? and is not anyone here besides us and his sisters? And they were scandalized in him.
1 * Greek 5045 mason

Mark 6:37 But answering, he said to them, "You give to them to eat." And they said to him, "Going forth, we may buy two hundred pennyweight3 of loaves and we should give to them to eat?"
3 * pennyweight— 32 grains of wheat from the middle of the ear

Mark 7:16 MSS (Omitted)

Mark 7:32 And they bring to him the deaf, and stammering; and they entreated him that he might apply his hand to him.

Mark 7:33 And he took him aside from the crowd in private, and placed his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue.

Mark 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he groaned, and said to him, Ephphatha, that is, "to open".

Mark 8:33 But he turning back, and seeing his disciples, reprimanded Peter, and said, Get back behind me, adversary; because you are not thinking the things of God, but the things of men.

Mark 9:20 And they brought him to him, and seeing him, at once the spirit seized him, and falling upon the ground, he rolled foaming.

Mark 9:25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running over, he reprimanded the unclean manes spirit, saying to it, "You dumb and deaf spirit, I seize you by force, come forth out of him, and no longer should you enter into him."

Mark 9:38 John answered him, saying, Teacher, I saw a certain one casting out demons in your name, and we hindered him. because he did not follow us.

Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, Do not hinder him: for there is no one who shall do a might in my name, and will be able to quickly slander me.

Mark 9:40 For who is not against you is for you.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why do you come out with me as good? No one is good except one, God.

Mark 10:21 But Jesus having looked on him, did like him, and said to him, 'In your bereavement; go, as much as you have sell, and give the poor, and have treasure from heaven, and come here, follow me.'1

Mark 10:22 But he looked sad at that saying, and went away regretful: for he had many temporalities2.
1 Omit: having taken up the cross. (MSS)
2 * Greek 2933 temporality; the properties and revenues, lay fees, tithes

Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it is to come into the kingdom of God for the ones having money!"1
1 * Greek 5535 money, shekel

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answering, said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God!2
2 * Omit: for those who trust in riches (MSS)

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the needle's eye,3 than the wealthy to enter into the kingdom of God.
3 * Greek 955 needles (partmeronym) eye; long stick of timber placed between the opening of the gates.