An Impossible Challenge for KJVOs

[FerventDisciple]

The NKJV continually points to the NU as having the correct reading. Who is NU?

The NKJV is neutral in it's textual footnotes. The NU footnotes represent the Nestle Aland and United Bible society's text which is essentially the same thing and the M notes represent the Majority Text. Arthur Farstad the main man behind the NKJV favored the Majority Text.

 

[FerventDisciple]

New major TR translation:

MEV | Modern English VersionHome | MEV | Modern English Version

 

[thankfulttt]

The NKJV is neutral in it's textual footnotes. The NU footnotes represent the Nestle Aland and United Bible society's text which is essentially the same thing and the M notes represent the Majority Text. Arthur Farstad the main man behind the NKJV favored the Majority Text.

The idea that the notes of the NU were placed there, questioning the text is not neutral in itself.

The NKJV translators had a bias for the Alexandrian Text as shown in the first book of the New Testament as they followed the spelling of the Alexandrian Text.

They followed the same line as the translations that use the Alexandrian Text in replacing the word master for teacher when applied to Jesus. The head teacher is called the master, but they preferred to change the King James to the more diminutive form, which is teacher.

They followed again in changing "power" to "authority" in Matthew 28:18. There is a difference. You can have authority to do something, and yet not have the power to do it. For example, I may have the authority to arrest a criminal, but not the power if he is holding a gun to my head.

They followed again in changing "Son" to "servant" in reference to Jesus. They translated the same Greek word "son" in John 4:51 so it was obviously a choice they made.

These changes become more important when you read the words of a Revised Version Translator referring to these changes and stating that Quote "--it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ."

 

[FerventDisciple]

The idea that the notes of the NU were placed there, questioning the text is not neutral in itself.

The NKJV translators had a bias for the Alexandrian Text as shown in the first book of the New Testament as they followed the spelling of the Alexandrian Text.

They followed the same line as the translations that use the Alexandrian Text in replacing the word master for teacher when applied to Jesus. The head teacher is called the master, but they preferred to change the King James to the more diminutive form, which is teacher.

They followed again in changing "power" to "authority" in Matthew 28:18. There is a difference. You can have authority to do something, and yet not have the power to do it. For example, I may have the authority to arrest a criminal, but not the power if he is holding a gun to my head.

They followed again in changing "Son" to "servant" in reference to Jesus. They translated the same Greek word "son" in John 4:51 so it was obviously a choice they made.

These changes become more important when you read the words of a Revised Version Translator referring to these changes and stating that Quote "--it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ."

Just having the notes there doesn't denote they support them. As I said, it's well known Arthur Farstad was a Majority Text advocate and didn't favor NU. If you look at the NU notes on the two largest textual variants in the New Testament, John 7:53-8:11 and the ending of the gospel of Mark, they take a position against the NU.

The issues you brought up are not textual, they are not textual variants but translation decisions.

 

[thankfulttt]

Just having the notes there doesn't denote they support them. As I said, it's well known Arthur Farstad was a Majority Text advocate and didn't favor NU. If you look at the NU notes on the two largest textual variants in the New Testament, John 7:53-8:11 and the ending of the gospel of Mark, they take a position against the NU.

The issues you brought up are not textual, they are not textual variants but translation decisions.

"James is back" asked what was wrong with the NKJV. Translation decisions are pertinent to that question. Those translation decisions that follow a trail going back to the Revised Version, who appeared to have made a decision to eliminate any aspect that relates to the Deity of Christ, at least according to one member of that translation committee, is one reason for the dislike of the NKJV. When you combine that with the insert of text which follows back to that same original translation committee you have a double reason.

No one likes to beat up on a translation of the bible, and yet we should be knowledgeable of their history.

Best regards, Terry

 

[FerventDisciple]

"James is back" asked what was wrong with the NKJV. Translation decisions are pertinent to that question. Those translation decisions that follow a trail going back to the Revised Version, who appeared to have made a decision to eliminate any aspect that relates to the Deity of Christ, at least according to one member of that translation committee, is one reason for the dislike of the NKJV. When you combine that with the insert of text which follows back to that same original translation committee you have a double reason.

No one likes to beat up on a translation of the bible, and yet we should be knowledgeable of their history.

Best regards, Terry

I'm not going to be defending all the translation decisions of the NKJV. I use both the KJV and NKJV and find that sometimes the KJV translation of a particular verse is better and other times the NKJV.

 

[LostMarbels]

To begin, you would first have to understand the attack made by the RCC against sola scriptura, and any who dared to believe the heresy that anyone could have a personal relationship with God, or understand the word of God without it being spoken by a priest, and agreed upon by the church. The first full bible with both OT and NT was the Peshito or Syriac. The date is uncertain, but agreed to be late first century, 160 AD to early 2nd century 240 AD. An guess what? This, the very first complete bible contains the verse: Acts 8:37 for example.


36
And as they went on their way, they came to a certain place where there was water And the abstainer said: Behold, water ! What prevents me from being baptized
37
And Philip said: If you believe with all your heart, it may be so And he answered, and said: I believe that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God
38
And he ordered the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, and Philip baptized the abstainer


Codex Sinaiticus, written around 330 AD Said to contain the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament was commissioned from Eusebius by Roman Emperor Constantine. An yet the verse is missing. Why? Let’s take a look. When Constantine became emperor of the Western Roman Empire in 312, he attributed his victory to the Christian God. During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith. Constantine feared that disunity would displease God and lead to trouble for the Empire, so he took military and judicial measures to eliminate some sects of Christianity. To resolve other disputes, Constantine began the practice of calling ecumenical councils to determine binding interpretations of Church doctrine. In 380, mainstream Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity became more associated with the Empire, resulting in persecution for Christians living outside of the empire, as their rulers feared Christians would revolt in favor of the Emperor. Then St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382. compiled the first official RCC bible in 400 AD, the Latin Vulgate. Which of course, does not contain the verse. In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first use of capital punishment being pronounced as a sentence upon a Christian 'heretic", for practicing sola scriptura, and the birth of the military might we now know as the RCC.

I think some people need to read up on the creation of the English version of the bible, and see how many were put to death, or jailed and hated by the Catholic Church. No king would dare go against the Pope, so the only way to become "authorized" by the Pope, put the Apocrypha in your bible,(The word's origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical") and adhere to RCC cannon. Also, the Catholic Church was THE authority, no one came before the Holy Catholic Church. Not even God. Here are 2 examples.

John Wycliffe. To Wycliffe, the Church is all of those who accepted Christ as savior. Including the Christians on earth who are living; those who are in heaven, and those in death. He also preached that no man, priest or not was saved just for being a Catholic. There was one holy and universal church outside of it there is no salvation. Its head is Christ. He used to base this assertion off of Ephesians.

Eph 5:23,-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Wycliffe believed and publicly preached that " No pope may say that he is the head of the church, for he cannot say that he is elect or even a member of the Church". Also the "church" was not of the world but of God. This really angered the Catholic church, and the came against Wycliffe.

And guess what was in his bible? Da ta dahhh!!!!!!!! The verse:

35 And Philip opened his mouth, and began at this scripture, and preached to him Jesus. 36 And while they went by the way, they came to a water [they came to some water]. And the gelding said, Lo! water; who forbiddeth me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest of all thine heart, it is leaveful. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down both into the water, Philip and the gelding, and Philip baptized him [and he baptized him]

On 4 May 1415, (after his death) the Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books (the bible) be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, Wycliffe's remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes were thrown into the River Swift.

Then, there was William Tyndale. Tyndale’s translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, ( The codex's, and not from the Latin Vulgate ) also the first English Bible to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and English Laws to maintain church rulings. The Catholic Church maintained that the word of God was only to be interpreted and preached by "men of the cloth" and was to stay in Latin so common men could not read it.Tyndale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden for over 500 days in horrible conditions. He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes."

Just take a wild guess what was in his bible.............. Just take a stab at it.

The more you read about it you will find out people were forced to accept Catholic rule, and the Apocrypha; or be tortured, jailed, and possibly murdered. I mean they would just torture you to you admitted anything anyways....... no one stood a chance against the Catholic Church at this point in time. They literally told the masses what to believe, how to believe, and how to worship. Or else you ended up in an inquisition, and either were tortured until you confessed you were a heretic, or died from the torture. Please take into account that sola scriptura is an act of heresy against the church.

Jesus said that no house can stand divided, so that leads to a very interesting question. How could to know (accepted) leader of Christianity come against anyone that recognized the authority of God as supreme over the earthly church, as a heretic? Simple, it was not from God. My lord and savior Jesus Christ did not kill people for preaching the gospel. There in-lies a very real attack against the bible, and the wording used. Satan is the author of confusion, and father of lies. The Cacophony of versions to follow all have different shades of meaning, wording, and even missing verses.THAT IS NO ACCIDENT OR "NEW' TRANSLATION. It is an attack to make confusion of the word of God.

All of the new translations from the RSV in 1952; to the NKJV in 1982 ( only 30 years ago ), and beyond, all lean heavily on the dead sea scrolls and newly discovered Manuscripts. Yet, some believe they are more accurate than the 1611 kjv that came from the original manuscripts from 1500BC to 100AD. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[sculleywr]

Your question would only be viable if we possessed the original manuscripts.(Autographs/letters.)

No. The fact that we don't have the original discredits all claims of inerrancy. You cannot prove inerrancy without inerrant autographs.

 

[thankfulttt]

No. The fact that we don't have the original discredits all claims of inerrancy. You cannot prove inerrancy without inerrant autographs.

It doesn't discredit the claims, it just makes it impossible to prove.

Terry

 

[sculleywr]

It doesn't discredit the claims, it just makes it impossible to prove.

Terry

A claim is discredited in Christianity for one of a couple reasons:

1. IT is impossible for this doctrine to apply to all men following God in all times. If you can't apply KJVO to Christians prior to 1611, then it is not valid.
2. It cannot be proven from Scripture or from the manuscripts (or, for us Orthodox, from the Tradition which we have). KJVO is unsupported from all three viewpoints, not the least of which being that there weren't even copies of any Scripture in any language in some churches (such as the Church in Gaul under Irenaeus).

 

[thankfulttt]

A claim is discredited in Christianity for one of a couple reasons:

1. IT is impossible for this doctrine to apply to all men following God in all times. If you can't apply KJVO to Christians prior to 1611, then it is not valid.
2. It cannot be proven from Scripture or from the manuscripts (or, for us Orthodox, from the Tradition which we have). KJVO is unsupported from all three viewpoints, not the least of which being that there weren't even copies of any Scripture in any language in some churches (such as the Church in Gaul under Irenaeus).

For nearly 400 years the Holy Spirit allowed the Received Text to stand alone as the English translation.

It took nearly a hundred years for men, who believed the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be folklore and legend, to gain acceptance for the Revised Version.

You really need to study these men to see who they were, and what they believed.

 

[sculleywr]

For nearly 400 years the Holy Spirit allowed the Received Text to stand alone as the English translation.

It took nearly a hundred years for men, who believed the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be folklore and legend, to gain acceptance for the Revised Version.

You really need to study these men to see who they were, and what they believed.

For 1500 years, there was no English translation.

The KJV isn't applicable for all of the Church, thus it is not required for Christians. It is a great translation which I have, but not the only.

 

[James Is Back]

For 1500 years, there was no English translation.

The KJV isn't applicable for all of the Church, thus it is not required for Christians. It is a great translation which I have, but not the only.

It has been suggested to use different Bibles to compare translations. If you want to use just the KJV than nothing wrong with that but there isn't nothing wrong with having other translations as well as well as nothing wrong with having more than 1 bible for comparison reasons.

 

[thankfulttt]

For 1500 years, there was no English translation.

The KJV isn't applicable for all of the Church, thus it is not required for Christians. It is a great translation which I have, but not the only.

sculleywr; have you examined the manuscripts behind the new translations, and the men who have provided them?

Psa 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

sculleywr; have you examined the manuscripts behind the new translations, and the men who have provided them?

Psa 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Best regards, Terry

In many cases, those manuscripts happen to be older. In either way, the variants are in no way dangerous to Christian doctrine unless you treat the Bible like a Qur'an.

 

[James Is Back]

In many cases, those manuscripts happen to be older. In either way, the variants are in no way dangerous to Christian doctrine unless you treat the Bible like a Qur'an.

But yet it effected Bart Ehrman when he studied Textual Criticism. But I guess some can't handle that kind of study.

 

[thankfulttt]

In many cases, those manuscripts happen to be older. In either way, the variants are in no way dangerous to Christian doctrine unless you treat the Bible like a Qur'an.

There is good evidence that suggests that their most touted old manuscript is no older than the nineteenth Century.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

There is good evidence that suggests that their most touted old manuscript is no older than the nineteenth Century.

Best regards, Terry

There is also good evidence that you say things without supporting your claims. Please show the evidence if you're going to compliment it.

 

[thankfulttt]

There is also good evidence that you say things without supporting your claims. Please show the evidence if you're going to compliment it.

Literary Forgeries of the Nineteenth Century

( Originally Published 1893 )

Constantine Simonides (1820-1867)

The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculusesuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger.-------------.

After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity ; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

Literary Forgeries of the Nineteenth Century

( Originally Published 1893 )

Constantine Simonides (1820-1867)

The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculusesuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger.-------------.

After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity ; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.

Best regards, Terry

So a man claims to have written the sinaiticus. You do know that the Sinaiticus isn't the only text included in the Majority Text? And there are versions that use the earlier copies of the Septuagint (like the Orthodox Study Bible) rather than the younger copies of the Masoretic text?

There is also the issue of people quoting Scriptures in keeping with the texts outside of the Textus Receptus.