King James Version

[Andyman_1970]

Please. Slander like this is not appropriate.

The translators of the NIV and NASB were conservative evangelicals who I would guess hold to the statements made by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that is generally agreed to by most evangelicals.

I know you are referring to Westcott and Hort who initiated the field of textual criticism, and KJVOs have written much slander against these two biblical scholars who were undoubtedly more liberal in their theology than the NIV and NASB translators. However, even they did not view the bible as ancient fairy tales.

Once again, very well said.

 

[JM]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

I think we disagree to the history of the TR, maybe that's the problem.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text.

As for a copy right, I thought one still existed inside the UK only?

 

[Gold Dragon]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

I think we disagree to the history of the TR, maybe that's the problem.

Fair enough. What aspect of the history of the TR that I outlined do you disagree with? The link you provided speaks very little of the TR but what it does mention, agrees with what I have posted.

As for a copy right, I thought one still existed inside the UK only?

Yes. This was addressed in post #37.

 

[JM]

http://www.primitivebaptist.org/H.Bass/textus_receptus.htm

 

[JM]

If older mss are better or closer to the orignals, why don't we use the Septuagint for the OT instead the Massoritic mss? It has been said that Jesus quoted the Septuagint...

 

[Gold Dragon]

If older mss are better or closer to the orignals, why don't we use the Septuagint for the OT instead the Massoritic mss? It has been said that Jesus quoted the Septuagint...

Older isn't always better. But often it is. I'll bet when it comes to songs, many from your church would say the older hymns are better than Contemporary Christian Music.

Modern translations do depend on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint in addition to the Massoretic texts for OT translation. There is a remarkable level of consistency between the three.

Also, the Septuagint is in Greek while the Massoretic texts are in Hebrew. So in pursuit of the original, using the Hebrew Massoretic texts and the DSS would be preferred over the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Gold Dragon]

http://www.primitivebaptist.org/H.Bass/textus_receptus.htm

There are so many incorrect statements in that essay it would take a long time to go through all of them. But I'll just look at the alleged "true tree" that the article presents for the TR.

Greek Text

|

Peshitta Bible - 150 AD

|

Antioch or Syrian

|

Itala Bible - 157 AD

|

Wycliffe's English - 1382 AD Handwritten

|

Erasmus Bible - 1522 AD

|

Tyndale's English - 1525 AD English Printed

|

Luther's Bible - 1534 AD German

|

Coverdale's Bible - 1535 AD

|

Matthew's Bible - 1537 AD

|

The Great Bible - 1539 AD

|

Stephen's Bible - 1550 AD

|

Geneva Bible - 1560 AD

|

Bishop's Bible - 1568 AD

|

Beza's Bible - 1604 AD

|

KING JAMES - 1611 AD ENGLISH TRANSLATION
​

​

 

[Gold Dragon]

Peshitta Bible - Aramaic (Syriac) translation dated around fifth century that appears to follow Byzantine readings for the gospels but not for Acts and Paul's Epistles.

Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
...


The text of the Peshitta is somewhat mixed. Various studies, mostly in the gospels, have attempted to tie it to all three text-types, but on the whole the Gospels text appears distinctly Byzantine (which is why the date of the Peshitta is so important. Whatever its date, it is the earliest Byzantine witness -- but if it is of the second century, that witness is of much greater significance than if it is of the fourth). This is not to say that the Peshitta is purely Byzantine, or shows the peculiarities of the Textus Receptus. It does not. It omits John 7:53-8:11, for instance. But it includes Matt. 16:2-3, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, etc. (most of which are omitted by the Old Syriac). Such non-Byzantine readings as it includes are probably survivals of an older exemplar which has been heavily corrected toward the Byzantine standard. In the rest of the New Testament the situation is rather different.

While the Byzantine text remains the strongest single element, in Acts and Paul the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types. In my estimation, these constitute about 30-40% of the whole. These readings do not, however, seem to belong to any particular text-type; they are neither overwhelmingly "Western" nor Alexandrian. I would guess that the text of the Peshitta here retains hints of the same sort of text we find in the Old Syriac, with some Byzantine overlay. It does not agree with the later (Harklean) Syriac version.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Itala Bible - several Old Latin, Pre-Vulgate bibles of the western text-type

Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
...
But which Latin version? That is indeed the problem -- for, in the period before the Vulgate, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts." Augustine complained that anyone who had the slightest hint of Greek and Latin might undertake a translation. They seem to have been right; of our dozens of non-Vulgate Latin manuscripts, no two seem to represent exactly the same translation.

Modern scholars have christened these pre-Vulgate translations, which generally originated in the second through fourth centuries, the "Old Latin." (These versions are sometimes called the "Itala," but this term is quite properly going out of use. It arose from a statement of Augustine's that the Itala was the best of the Latin versions -- but we no longer know what this statement means or which version(s) it refers to.) The Old Latins are traditionally broken up into three classes, the African, the European, and the Italian. Even these terms can be misleading, however, as there is no clear dividing line between the European and the Italian; the Italian generally refers to European texts of a more polished type -- and in any case these are groups of translations, not individual translations.

The Old Latin gospels generally, although by no means universally, have the books in the "Western" order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) -- an order found also in D and W but otherwise very rare among Greek manuscripts.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Wyclif Bible (1382) - English Translation based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The vulgate contains both Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

Prologue to Wyclif Bible
...
But some, that would seem learned and holy, would hinder us, saying that if indeed men now were as holy as Jerome was, they might truly translate out of Latin into English, as he did out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin, but that we ought to refrain from doing so now, because in fact we lack the holiness and knowledge of men like Jerome. Now, although this argument seems plausible enough, in fact it has no basis in good reasoning or good will, for this argument is more against Jerome himself, and the translators of the Septuagint, and against the church itself, than against the simple men who now translate God's word into English. For Jerome was not as holy as the Apostles and Evangelists whose books he translated into Latin, and he had not the superior gifts of the holy spirit which these men had. Likewise the seventy translators of the Septuagint were not so holy as Moses and the Prophets, and they had not the gifts of these men. Furthermore, the church has in the past approved not only the true translations done by humble Christian men who were steadfast in the faith, but also those done by heretics, who by clever translations obscured many mysteries of Christ, as Jerome testifies in his prologues to Job and Daniel. How much more ought the Church of England to approve the true and honest translation of simple men, who would for no reward in this earth knowingly obscure the least truth, or even the least letter or jot of holy scripture, if it have any significance.
...

 

[Gold Dragon]

Erasmus' Bible (1516) - Greek NT compilation with revisions in 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535. Based primarily on three 12th century manuscripts from Eastern Christianity located in Basle, Switzerland with contributions from several others including the Latin Vulgate. His sources were mostly Byzantine besides 1eap which had Western or Alexandrian readings but wasn't used extensively.

Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
...
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)

Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.

Stephen (or Stephanus or Estienne)and Beza Bibles were also Greek NT compilations that were based directly on Erasmus' work with a few alterations.

Bible Researcher - Estienne, 1546

The renowned French printer Robert Estienne, called Stephens in England, gave in his first two editions (1546, 1549) a text which for the most part followed Erasmus' fourth edition (1527), but with many departures from it according to the Complutensian edition (see Stunica 1522). In his preface to the first two editions he does not mention Erasmus, and instead refers vaguely to certain manuscripts he had examined in the King's library, and to the Complutensian edition, as his sources.
In his third edition (1550) he adhered more closely to Erasmus in the text (still without notice), and presented the various readings of the Complutensian in the margin, along with a selection of readings of the manuscripts referred to earlier.

Bible Researcher - Beza, 1565

The basis of Beza's text was Estienne 1551 with a few minor changes, amounting to less than a hundred. Beza was a prominent theologian and scholar in Geneva, and his changes were generally taken to be improvements upon the text; but in many places this is doubtful.

 

[JM]

I guess it comes down to which facts you'll believe. I don't believe the what you posted Dragon is true and I'm not the only one.

In the sake of unity of the Church, I'm staying quiet.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Luther's Bible (1534) - German version based on Erasmus' 1519 greek compilation, the Latin Vulgate and the Massoretic text (OT).

Schaff's - Luther's Translation of the Bible
...
The Original Text

The basis for Luther's version of the Old Testament was the Massoretic text as published by Gerson Ben Mosheh at Brescia in 1494. (24) He used also the Septuagint, the Vulgate of Jerome (25) (although he disliked him exceedingly on account of his monkery), the Latin translations of the Dominican Sanctes Pagnini of Lucca (1527), and of the Franciscan Sebastian Münster (1534), the "Glossa ordinaria" (a favorite exegetical vade-mecum of Walafried Strabo from the ninth century), and Nicolaus Lyra (d. 1340), the chief of mediaeval commentators, who, besides the Fathers, consulted also the Jewish rabbis. (26)

The basis for the New Testament was the second edition of Erasmus, published at Basel in Switzerland in 1519. (27) His first edition of the Greek Testament had appeared in 1516, just one year before the Reformation. He derived the text from a few mediaeval MSS. (28) The second edition, though much more correct than the first ("multo diligentius recognitum, emendatum," etc.), is disfigured by a large -number of typographical errors. (29) He laid the foundation of the Textus Receptus, which was brought into its mature shape by R. Stephen, in his "royal edition" of 1550 (the basis of the English Textus Receptus), and by the Elzevirs in their editions of 1624 and 1633 (the basis of the Continental Textus Receptus), and which maintained the supremacy till Lachmann inaugurated the adoption of an older textual basis (1831).

Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text. He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his third edition (1522) against his better judgment. (30)

 

[Andyman_1970]

I guess it comes down to which facts you'll believe. I don't believe the what you posted Dragon is true and I'm not the only one.

In the sake of unity of the Church, I'm staying quiet.

With all due respect may I ask why you don't believe what he posted?

 

[Gold Dragon]

I guess it comes down to which facts you'll believe. I don't believe the what you posted Dragon is true and I'm not the only one.

No problem. You don't have to take my word for it. Do some serious research for yourself.

In the sake of unity of the Church, I'm staying quiet.

I have always felt united to my KJVO brethren, despite our disagreements. I would feel more united if KJVOs were able to engage in friendly and intelligent discussions where we may disagree. You don't have to change your mind about anything. You can still believe that the KJV is the only infallible translation that you trust. Just stop propogating the lies that KJVO or TRO websites propogate about other translations and even the KJV and TR itself in order to defend their position.

This is a very minor disagreement compared to some of the other Christian disagreements out there.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Just to round things out, this english series of bibles was all derived from Erasmus' Greek NT.

Tyndale's NT (1525) - Based on Erasmus' greek compilation
Coverdale's Bible (1535) - Finished the OT for Tyndale's NT based on Latin Vulgate
Matthew's Bible (1537) - Revision of Tyndale's NT with OT of unknown source
Taverner's Bible (1539) - Revision of Matthew's
Great Bible (1539) - Revision of Coverdale's with OT influences from Latin sources including Vulgate. 1st Authorized Version
Geneva Bible (1560) - OT from Great Bible, NT from Matthew's Bible
Bishop's Bible (1568) - revision of Great and Geneva Bibles. 2nd Authorized Version
King James Version (1611) - based largely on Stephanus' 1550, 1551 and Beza's 1598. Some influence from Great Bible. 3rd Authorized Version

Flow Chart of Bible History

 

[Alexander Nissi]

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask of you all. Ive been to a lot of Baptist churches in my time (theres one about ever 500 feet in this area ) and some that I have been to only recognize the KJV as the only correct bible and any other has been altered to decieve others. I think you would call these types of Christians "King James Onlyist" or something. My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation? If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others? What makes it different?

One reason my church does not like the KJV is because it changes the meanings of some of the verses because of the language it was translated from. Since the KJV was translated from Latin to english, it is missing words in some verses because of the fact that some Latin words can't be translated into english. Most of the other versions arefrom the original hebrew and greek.~Alec

 

[SonOfThunder]

I wonder if anyone knows what verse is totally missing from the kjv?

 

[SumTinWong]

I give up, what is it?

 

[staugustine68]

I use the NIV, my wife uses the NLT and we both own the KJV.

I love them all.