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.
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.
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.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.
In the above quote you claim that it is the "same exact text", now it is only 99% the same. So which is it?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.
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 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.
And your basis for claiming this?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.
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?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.
"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.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"
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.
then how is the King James Bible perfect and infallible?
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.
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.
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.
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
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 }
Jeremiah 34:16 (AKJV)...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...."
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.and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty....
If there are execeptions and it is only 99.99% accurate and literal, then how is the King James Bible perfect and infallible?
"the Bible remains the word of God, no matter how poor the translation."
What happened to those? Why were they inspired in 1611, but not today?
Until Gutenburg (who was Catholic, BTW) invented moveable type, Bibles were too EXPENSIVE for the "common man" to AFFORD
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?