KJV Onlyism?

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you all feel about the subject? I like the sentiment that the movement has, but I just don't feel it can hold up to academic scrutiny when compared with the modern versions...

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Hi leevo,

I would never claim to be some great authority on the various translations of the Scriptures. There are many. However, I do feel able and compelled to give an answer to your question because I have long prayed for wisdom and studied the Scriptures. God created this realm in which we live. All from absolutely nothing God created everything. He created for the express purpose that He was going to create a living creature that He would love and nurture and protect and provide for and that creature would in turn love Him in return. Being aware that the very reason that every 4-5 seconds their lungs filled with air and they therefore breathed and had life was because - God. Being aware that when their bodies hungered for food it was there because - God. Being aware that the very reason that they existed was because a loving and caring God created them. That creature is man.

God created man, of all the living creatures that He created in this realm, God created man to understand and comprehend who He is. God created man with the purpose and desire to have a relationship with man. Yes, He loves man above all that He created, but desires that man also love Him in return. He wants a relationship of love and respect between all parties. He wants us to understand why we exist so that we will desire to fulfill this purpose for which God created this realm. In the end, as the Revelation accounts, God is going to have what He has purposed to create. He is going to live with us and be our God and those who have understood and accepted God's position of Creator and Authority and willing and desirous of the relationship of love that God seeks, will live with Him.

To accomplish this purpose, God caused His Holy Spirit to drive certain men to write down all that God wants us to know so that we can, if we so choose, know and accept the truth. These Scriptures were written down by godly men and have been protected by that same Spirit throughout the ages. They were written in a language foreign to most of us and so have been translated into the common language of the nations. However, throughout all of these ages; all of this long passing of time upon the earth, the purpose of the Scriptures remains the same. To give man the ability to know and understand God and all that He has done.

Throughout the writing and translation of these many and varied versions of the Scriptures there have been some differences in how a particular translator worded his translation. There have been some few seeming discrepancies as to whether a certain word or passage was really in the original writing, which sadly we no longer have. However, in all of this, God's Scriptures still stand as a beacon calling us to know and understand God and our purpose in His creation. Any reasonable thinking man or woman can pick up a copy of any of the 'good' translations and, after reading it, know God's purpose and desire for us.

There is not a single translation which fails in telling clearly that God created this realm in which we live. There is not a single translation that fails to impress us with the knowledge of the truth that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; that which He created us to be. There is not a single translation that doesn't clearly explain to us that God has provided a way of salvation despite our sin, and that way is through Jesus. There is not a single translation which doesn't confirm in agreement with all the others how all this is going to be resolved one day.

So, I'm a fan of every good translation of the Scriptures. I'm not one to care what translation someone reads, but rather I'm more like Phillip in asking of someone reading any good translation, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There are no original manuscripts from 1500 BC. The oldest OT manuscripts/fragments are from about the second century BC.

Ok.... so out of everything in my post, that, is what stands out? I will research that, and if I am wrong I will concede that point point.

However, I have read from scholars that contend:
The "oldest" example of Hebrew from an archaeological context is of the 10th century B.C., the so-called Gezer Stone, inscribed on limestone, it lists the months of the year by the tasks to be performed (cf. Vol.3. p.96. Mark D. McLean. "Hebrew Scripts." David Noel Freedman, Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992)
The biblical text suggests for many Conservative-Fundamentalist scholars that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ca. The 15th century B.C., cf. 1 Kings 6:1, which suggests an Exodus ca. 1446 B.C. said date being found in King James Bibles and computed ca. 1650 A.D. by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland and placed in the margins of said Bibles in the 18th century. The Roman Catholic Bibles, in contrast, being descended in part from the 3rd century B.C. Greek written Septuaginta Bible, preserve a date for the Exodus of 1512 B.C.

The aforementioned linguistical morphology looks at consonantal graphemes of ancient Northwest Semitic, which Hebrew descended from, to better understand the true date of origin of the torah, and/or Pentateuch. However, it is still debated with some scholars stating an origin of 18th-15th centuries B.C. But many contend that the Hebrew language did not exist at that time.

The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment.Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press. 1966)
The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992

So... it would seem no matter how far we go back there is always someone yelling: "that isn't the earliest copy!" Or: "Moses didn't... John didn't... This person, that person didn't write it."

So... at what point do we trust the God that is able to save our souls, with the task of the preservation of his own word?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWood
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ok.... so out of everything in my post, that, is what stands out? I will research that, and if I am wrong I will concede that point point.

However, I have read from scholars that contend:
The "oldest" example of Hebrew from an archaeological context is of the 10th century B.C., the so-called Gezer Stone, inscribed on limestone, it lists the months of the year by the tasks to be performed (cf. Vol.3. p.96. Mark D. McLean. "Hebrew Scripts." David Noel Freedman, Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992)
The biblical text suggests for many Conservative-Fundamentalist scholars that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ca. The 15th century B.C., cf. 1 Kings 6:1, which suggests an Exodus ca. 1446 B.C. said date being found in King James Bibles and computed ca. 1650 A.D. by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland and placed in the margins of said Bibles in the 18th century. The Roman Catholic Bibles, in contrast, being descended in part from the 3rd century B.C. Greek written Septuaginta Bible, preserve a date for the Exodus of 1512 B.C.

The aforementioned linguistical morphology looks at consonantal graphemes of ancient Northwest Semitic, which Hebrew descended from, to better understand the true date of origin of the torah, and/or Pentateuch. However, it is still debated with some scholars stating an origin of 18th-15th centuries B.C. But many contend that the Hebrew language did not exist at that time.

The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment.Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press. 1966)
The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992


So... it would seem no matter how far we go back there is always someone yelling: "that isn't the earliest copy!" Or: "Moses didn't... John didn't... This person, that person didn't write it."

So... at what point do we trust the God that is able to save our souls, with the task of the preservation of his own word?

Now you switch from an empirical discussion to a subjective one.
 
Upvote 0

ClothedInGrace

Soli Deo Gloria
Supporter
Jun 9, 2015
1,163
474
✟50,101.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How do you all feel about the subject? I like the sentiment that the movement has, but I just don't feel it can hold up to academic scrutiny when compared with the modern versions...

What are your thoughts on the subject?
Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach anytime I hear a preacher teaching out of the KJV. Why? Because the language is archaic and the translation is outdated. Most who preach out of the KJV only do so because of their traditions or because they reason that its age makes it more accurate--even though we have more manuscripts today than when it was written.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There are no original manuscripts from 1500 BC. The oldest OT manuscripts/fragments are from about the second century BC.

Indeed.

The Septuagint, written around 250 BC, just happens to be the same version that Jesus often quoted from.

Hum...

The so called "Masoretic Text" only dates to some time between the 6th to 10th century.

I wonder where the original Hebrews texts were hidden at?

In fact:

"...the Old Testament scriptures were written in Paleo-Hebrew, a text closely related to ancient Phonecian writing system.

The Masoretic Text is written with an alphabet which was borrowed from Assyria around the 6-7th century BC, and is almost 1000 years newer than the form of writing used by Moses, David, and most of the Old Testament authors."

Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew, A Radical Different Alphabet

And we also know:

"A Hebrew bible exists today. It is used by Jews everywhere. It is called the Masoretic Text. It was compiled around 700 AD. It is almost 1000 years newer than the Septuagint...The Septuagint predates the appearance of the Masoretic Text by almost ten centuries."

Mystagogy: Septuagint vs. Masoretic: Which is More Accurate?; Guns, Lies, and Forgeries: A Bible Story, By: Robert E. Reis

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
There are no original manuscripts from 1500 BC. The oldest OT manuscripts/fragments are from about the second century BC.

Steve,

Yours is an objection that I hear from time to time.

People commonly say to me: But we don’t have the originals so it is pointless to talk about the inerrancy of original documents we do not have. Do you think so? I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it (Harris 1969:88-89).

Therefore, even though the original Bible MSS may be missing and the earliest documents we have are a while after the writing of the autographa, Harris's explanation for the master gauge and copies holds as much for the MSS of the Bible as for master gauges.

Oz

Works consulted
Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
No brainer.
So, no argument. I dont get confused by KJV.
As for academics, well I did a library degree. i can tell you its the first popular translation in the english language and is a well respected and trusted Bible, has never been out of print. Is in the public domain, and been read by born again christians the world over. You can find a copy in most every library. If I were to give a bible to anybody who read in english and was actually serious about their faith it would be a KJV there is no substitute for the real thing.

Large print versions are especially useful.
Also..new versions come and go, but KJV seems to be standard. Of course its not the only bible around but If youve got that version I tell you its a good thing. So many I christians I know testify to how it was the one bible that grew them spiritually and spoke to them, as it did me. It has my respect. So I can totally understand why people wouldnt want to use any other.

Goodbook,

The Statistics Portal for 2015 reveals that 39% of people in the USA read the KJV. The rest of the people read other versions.

To which KJV are you referring? Are you referring to the 1611 edition that comes complete with the Apocrypha? The KJV on which I was raised was a 1769 revision. It was not the 1611 edition.

There were about 75,000 changes in the KJV between 1611 and 1769, many of them being only minor, including changes of spelling. See 'Changes in the King James Version' from 1611 to 1769.

There are other issues surrounding the Greek text that Erasmus compiled for the Textus Receptus of the NT that was used in the 1611 KJV.

I use a large print edition of the ESV.

You say, 'new versions come and go'. To which new versions are you referring that have come and gone? The English Revised Version, American Standard Version, and Revised Standard Version have been used and updated for other translations. It is not that they have 'come and gone', but they have rightly been changed because of new MSS discoveries and changes of the use and meaning of words. 'Cometh' and 'believeth' are not words that I use.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Somebody once said:

Scrivener wrote the textbook on textual criticism

It is funny that we know the Codex Bezae was one of the MSS used in the KJV.

And we also know that Beza's translation of Acts was the one used in the KJV.

Funny that F.A.H. Scrivener also noted that there is evidence that eight (8) scribes can be seen at work in the book of Acts.

Greg Polson writes:

"Eighteen other scribes are involved in corrections and/or lectionary notes, ranging in date from the fifth to seventh centuries (and supplemental material in the ninth century)."

Source: Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Gregory Scott Polson, Dissertation, Edinburg, UK., 2013, Chapter 5: Codex Bezae, 5.1.1, The Scribe, Correctors, and Bezae's Provenance, p. 83, n11

Found on-line here: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/8957/Paulson2013.pdf?sequence=2

So, if the KJV is "the preserved word of God" as KJV Onlyists tout, pray tell me which one of the up to 26 scribes was "inspired" by God?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How do you all feel about the subject? I like the sentiment that the movement has, but I just don't feel it can hold up to academic scrutiny when compared with the modern versions...

What are your thoughts on the subject?
Same as yours. :)
Although the modern versions should be as close as possible to the original texts.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
You realize your lengthy explanation only solidifies my point. When further translation is required so that a contradiction doesn't occur, the translation is rendered errant.

Here is a lengthy explanation ,that may help:

Offering Up of Isaac. - For many years had Abraham waited to be fulfilled. At length the Lord had given him the desired heir of his body by his wife Sarah, and directed him to send away the son of the maid. And now that this son had grown into a young man, the word of God came to Abraham to offer up this very son, who had been given to him as the heir of the promise, for a burnt-offering, upon one of the mountains which should be shown him. This word did not come from his own heart, - was not a thought suggested by the sight of the human sacrifices of the Canaanites, that he would offer a similar sacrifice to his God; nor did it originate with the tempter to evil. The word came from Ha-Elohim, the personal, true God, who tried him (נסּה), i.e., demanded the sacrifice of the only, beloved son, as a proof and attestation of his faith. The issue shows, that God did not desire the sacrifice of Isaac by slaying and burning him upon the altar, but his complete surrender, and a willingness to offer him up to God even by death.
Nevertheless the divine command was given in such a form, that Abraham could not understand it in any other way than as requiring an outward burnt-offering, because there was no other way in which Abraham could accomplish the complete surrender of Isaac, than by an actual preparation for really offering the desired sacrifice. This constituted the trial, which necessarily produced a severe internal conflict in his mind. Ratio humana simpliciter concluderet aut mentiri promissionem aut mandatum non esse Dei sed Diaboli; est enim contradictio manifesta. Si enim debet occidi Isaac, irrita est promissio; sin rata est promissio, impossibile est hoc esse Dei mandatum(Luther). But Abraham brought his reason into captivity to the obedience of faith. He did not question the truth of the word of God, which had been addressed to him in a mode that was to his mind perfectly infallible (not in a vision of the night, however, of which there is not a syllable in the text), but he stood firm in his faith, “accounting that god was able to raise him up, even from the dead” Hebrews 11:19). Without taking counsel with flesh and blood, Abraham started early in the morning (Genesis 22:3, Genesis 22:4), with his son Isaac and two servants, to obey the divine command; and on the third day (for the distance from Beersheba to Jerusalem is about 20 1/2 hours; Rob. Pal. iii. App. 66, 67) he saw in the distance the place mentioned by God, the land of Moriah, i.e., the mountainous country round about Jerusalem. The name מריּה, composed of the Hophal partic. of ראה and the divine name יה, an abbreviation of יהוה (lit., “the shown of Jehovah,” equivalent to the manifestation of Jehovah), is no doubt used proleptically in Genesis 22:2, and given to the mountain upon which the sacrifice was to be made, with direct reference to this event and the appearance of Jehovah to Abraham there. This is confirmed by Genesis 22:14, where the name is connected with the event, and explained in the fuller expression Jehovah-jireh. On the ground of this passage the mountain upon which Solomon built the temple is called המּריּה with reference to the appearance of the angel of the Lord to David on that mountain at the threshing-floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24:16-17), the old name being revived by this appearance.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Genesis 20
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Somebody once said:



It is funny that we know the Codex Bezae was one of the MSS used in the KJV.

And we also know that Beza's translation of Acts was the one used in the KJV.

Funny that F.A.H. Scrivener also noted that there is evidence that eight (8) scribes can be seen at work in the book of Acts.

Greg Polson writes:

"Eighteen other scribes are involved in corrections and/or lectionary notes, ranging in date from the fifth to seventh centuries (and supplemental material in the ninth century)."

Source: Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Gregory Scott Polson, Dissertation, Edinburg, UK., 2013, Chapter 5: Codex Bezae, 5.1.1, The Scribe, Correctors, and Bezae's Provenance, p. 83, n11

Found on-line here: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/8957/Paulson2013.pdf?sequence=2

So, if the KJV is "the preserved word of God" as KJV Onlyists tout, pray tell me which one of the up to 26 scribes was "inspired" by God?

God Bless

Till all are one.

The King James translaters were professors in Hebrew Greek and Chaldean.
You can read critics theology on what the translation was taken from,but the theory of a critic is merely a supposition based on ignorance of fact.
The fact is the King James Translators were far and away the most knowledgeable professors of language ever assembled.


A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these:

  • Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
  • Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
  • Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.
  • Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
  • William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
  • Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
  • Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.
  • Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
  • Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.
  • John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
  • Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
  • Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.

Bible researcher. Com
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The King James translaters were professors in Hebrew Greek and Chaldean.
You can read critics theology on what the translation was taken from,but the theory of a critic is merely a supposition based on ignorance of fact.
The fact is the King James Translators were far and away the most knowledgeable professors of language ever assembled.


A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these:

  • Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
  • Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
  • Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.
  • Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
  • William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
  • Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
  • Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.
  • Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
  • Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.
  • John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
  • Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
  • Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.

Bible researcher. Com

Having the very best translators does not help when the KJV NT is based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus in the 16th century, that was compiled from 3 MSS from the 12th century. None of these MSS had the last page of the NT, so the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation were missing from these MSS. How did Erasmus know 6 verses were missing? He knew the Latin Vulgate, so he translated the last 6 verses from the Latin into the Greek.

However, since the 16th century many earlier Greek MSS have been found. None of these agrees exactly with the Greek Erasmus translated. So Erasmus added new Greek to the last 6 verses of the Bible.

Further details are in, The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Having the very best translators does not help when the KJV NT is based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus in the 16th century, that was compiled from 3 MSS from the 12th century. None of these MSS had the last page of the NT, so the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation were missing from these MSS. How did Erasmus know 6 verses were missing? He knew the Latin Vulgate, so he translated the last 6 verses from the Latin into the Greek.

However, since the 16th century many earlier Greek MSS have been found. None of these agrees exactly with the Greek Erasmus translated. So Erasmus added new Greek to the last 6 verses of the Bible.

Further details are in, The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?

Oz

He had 5 renderings ' of the translation simply because he retranslated the Latin does not diminish his work on the Textus Receptus.

There are huge amounts of verses missing in the Critical Text, as well many of today's evolving translations diminish the Devine nature of Christ.

One common mistake found in some of the Bibles from the Critical text ,is Christ and Lucifer are both called by the same name.
The morning star refers to Lucifer in Isaiah and refers to Christ in Revelation.
There are many more we could make excuses for.

I believe it comes down to wanting to view the Bible from many different ways in translation, or having faith that God gave us one text for English speaking people.
For some it is simply a textbook for others it is the Word of God, and is Devine.

I do not understand the venom toward people who choose the King James as their Bible.
Personally I have been told not to visit a Church because I would not understand their bibles, it's a shame they do not understand my Bible.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Many may disagree with this man's denomination, but his teaching on many subjects is spot on.
His work on God's Word is solid as well his rebuttal on evolution.
Do I agree on everything he teaches no,but I have learned not to throw the baby out with the bath water.


 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
He had 5 renderings ' of the translation simply because he retranslated the Latin does not diminish his work on the Textus Receptus.

There are huge amounts of verses missing in the Critical Text, as well many of today's evolving translations diminish the Devine nature of Christ.

One common mistake found in some of the Bibles from the Critical text ,is Christ and Lucifer are both called by the same name.
The morning star refers to Lucifer in Isaiah and refers to Christ in Revelation.
There are many more we could make excuses for.

I believe it comes down to wanting to view the Bible from many different ways in translation, or having faith that God gave us one text for English speaking people.
For some it is simply a textbook for others it is the Word of God, and is Devine.

I do not understand the venom toward people who choose the King James as their Bible.
Personally I have been told not to visit a Church because I would not understand their bibles, it's a shame they do not understand my Bible.

now faith,

What I wrote was not meant to diminish Erasmus's work. But the fact is that he had very few Greek MSS to choose from (three) and did not have the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in any of the MSS he had.

No, there are not 'huge amounts of verses missing in the Critical Text'. It's the other way around. There are 'huge amounts of verses' (your language) that have been added in the Textus Receptus (TR) because the MSS are late - 12th century. The verses added are seen by comparing the TR with, say, Sinaiticus. The much earlier text of Sinaiticus (estimated date 4th century) does not have these added verses because it is closer to the originals and does not have 8 centuries of copying - time to add lots of variants, including verses.

It's a serious situation to ADD to Scripture. We have warnings against it in Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6. Especially we need to note Rev 22:18-19 (ESV),
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Rev 22:18-19 applies to the Book of Revelation and Erasmus broke this by adding words to the last 6 verses of Revelation. We dare not underestimate what Erasmus did by translating from the Latin to the Greek in the TR and adding words to the Book of Revelation.

You say, ' many of today's evolving translations diminish the Devine nature of Christ'. I hope you mean Divine and not Devine. But you give not one example - not one.

I believe it comes down to wanting to view the Bible from many different ways in translation, or having faith that God gave us one text for English speaking people.
For some it is simply a textbook for others it is the Word of God, and is Devine.

You say that God gave us one text for English speaking people. That is your personal opinion that is rejected by historical precedent. Why are you insisting it has to be the KJV (1611)? Wycliffe's (ca. 1382), Tyndale's (1526) and Coverdale's (1535) translations were prior to the KJV. Why shouldn't they be the ones chosen?

You state: 'I do not understand the venom toward people who choose the King James as their Bible'. I have absolutely no venom (that's a very strong word) towards those who support the KJV but I will speak out when misinformation is spread - like your charge that 'there are huge amounts of verses missing in the Critical Text'. The fact is that it is the TR that has added words and verses. If you don't believe me, then take a Textus Receptus and go to the British Museum to view the MSS Sinaiticus and compare the differences.

I have a deep respect for the KJV. It was the one I used for many years when I was first converted 55 years ago, but it is not the language I speak and the Greek MSS on which it is based are inferior to the thousands of MSS found since the 12th century that enable us to have a Greek NT - the UBS or Nestle-Aland text (I read and have taught NT Greek) that goes back to a time closer to the originals.

Which edition of the KJV are you using? The 1611 edition, complete with the Apocrypha, or the 1769 or another revision? The one that was given to me when saved was the 1769 revision.

Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Oz , my spelling is not the best,as well my spell checker cannot keep up I guess.
Many comparisons side by side have been done here is a few.

John 6:69

MT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
CT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.
John 7:53-8:11

Passage omitted in the critical text. See Jesus and the woman taken in adultery
John 8:59 Wickopedia



There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican.

This is but one of many examples of this problem. There are many words, verses and passages which are omitted from the modern versions but which are found in the Traditional or Byzantine Text of the New Testament, and thus in the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels. These problems between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are very important to the correct translation and interpretation of the New Testament. Contrary to the contention of supporters of the Critical Text, these omissions do affect doctrine and faith in the Christian life.

Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text

  • omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12
  • omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14
In addition, an error is created in the Bible in Mark 1.2; in this passage in the Critical Text Isaiah is made the author of the book of Malachi. In numerous places in the New Testament the name of Jesus is omitted from the Critical Text; seventy times 'Jesus' is omitted and twenty-nine times 'Christ' is omitted.(1)

Another problem with the modern Critical Text is that the two main manuscripts upon which this text is constructed, the Sinai and the Vatican, disagree between themselves over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. Thus, the Alexandrian text presents itself as a text type which is characterized in many places by readings which are not common to the manuscripts of their own tradition. The Critical Text is characterized by wording which in the original language is difficult, abrupt or even impossible. It appears that no matter how peculiar or aberrant the variant reading is, it must have been in the original autographs because (as is sometimes claimed) a scribe would never make a change which disagrees with other manuscripts; he would, instead, make a change which would make a passage read more smoothly.

Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is. A manuscript which is dated as having been copied during the 10th century could have been the fifth in a line of copies originating with the original autograph, whilst a manuscript dated as having been copied during the 3rd century could have been the one hundredth in the line of copies. Since it is difficult to tell the genealogy, the family of any given manuscript, it is important to note that age is relative in the sense that you could have a corrupt 3rd century manuscript or a faithful 10th century manuscript.

A good illustration would be to suppose that, in the year 3000, a copy of the English Bible was found which dated from the 1970s. Suppose this Bible happened to be the oldest existing Bible available, and this Bible happened to differ in hundreds of places from the Bible that was in use by Christians in the year 3000. One could well imagine the scientific critics, with their methodology, extolling the virtues of the ancient age of this Bible, the page design showing quality, careful care in the layout and the paper of this particular volume, the binding and so on. But their arguments would tend to fall apart when, after beginning to translate Bibles into modern languages on the basis of this ancient book, Christians discovered that this version of the Scriptures was the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Trinitarian Bible Society.

Oz if you were saved with the King James along with millions of others around the world, why use another text?

But this is a long in the tooth debate that I am losing my concern on.
I do not condemn others for what the use as a Bible,but I will not sit under a Pastor who uses a corrupt text.

Example the New living translation renamed Homosexuals as temple prostitutes.
This vindicated Homosexuals in the right to marry.
A prostitute can quit her ways and marry.
Sodomites, are men who prefer men yet by this premises they could stop being prostitutes and marry each other.

I will leave this up to others to debate ,
God Bless
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Oz , my spelling is not the best,as well my spell checker cannot keep up I guess.
Many comparisons side by side have been done here is a few.

John 6:69

MT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
CT: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.
John 7:53-8:11

Passage omitted in the critical text. See Jesus and the woman taken in adultery
John 8:59 Wickopedia

There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican.

This is but one of many examples of this problem. There are many words, verses and passages which are omitted from the modern versions but which are found in the Traditional or Byzantine Text of the New Testament, and thus in the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels. These problems between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are very important to the correct translation and interpretation of the New Testament. Contrary to the contention of supporters of the Critical Text, these omissions do affect doctrine and faith in the Christian life.

Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text

  • omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12
  • omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14
In addition, an error is created in the Bible in Mark 1.2; in this passage in the Critical Text Isaiah is made the author of the book of Malachi. In numerous places in the New Testament the name of Jesus is omitted from the Critical Text; seventy times 'Jesus' is omitted and twenty-nine times 'Christ' is omitted.(1)

Another problem with the modern Critical Text is that the two main manuscripts upon which this text is constructed, the Sinai and the Vatican, disagree between themselves over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. Thus, the Alexandrian text presents itself as a text type which is characterized in many places by readings which are not common to the manuscripts of their own tradition. The Critical Text is characterized by wording which in the original language is difficult, abrupt or even impossible. It appears that no matter how peculiar or aberrant the variant reading is, it must have been in the original autographs because (as is sometimes claimed) a scribe would never make a change which disagrees with other manuscripts; he would, instead, make a change which would make a passage read more smoothly.

Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is. A manuscript which is dated as having been copied during the 10th century could have been the fifth in a line of copies originating with the original autograph, whilst a manuscript dated as having been copied during the 3rd century could have been the one hundredth in the line of copies. Since it is difficult to tell the genealogy, the family of any given manuscript, it is important to note that age is relative in the sense that you could have a corrupt 3rd century manuscript or a faithful 10th century manuscript.

A good illustration would be to suppose that, in the year 3000, a copy of the English Bible was found which dated from the 1970s. Suppose this Bible happened to be the oldest existing Bible available, and this Bible happened to differ in hundreds of places from the Bible that was in use by Christians in the year 3000. One could well imagine the scientific critics, with their methodology, extolling the virtues of the ancient age of this Bible, the page design showing quality, careful care in the layout and the paper of this particular volume, the binding and so on. But their arguments would tend to fall apart when, after beginning to translate Bibles into modern languages on the basis of this ancient book, Christians discovered that this version of the Scriptures was the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Trinitarian Bible Society.

Oz if you were saved with the King James along with millions of others around the world, why use another text?

But this is a long in the tooth debate that I am losing my concern on.
I do not condemn others for what the use as a Bible,but I will not sit under a Pastor who uses a corrupt text.

Example the New living translation renamed Homosexuals as temple prostitutes.
This vindicated Homosexuals in the right to marry.
A prostitute can quit her ways and marry.
Sodomites, are men who prefer men yet by this premises they could stop being prostitutes and marry each other.

I will leave this up to others to debate ,
God Bless

You obviously didn't take any notice of what I wrote in #35, It is NOT the Critical Text (UBS, Nestle-Aland) that has left out texts. It is the Textus Receptus (TR) that has ADDED texts because it had only 3 MSS from the 12th century. The more a MSS is copied, the higher the likelihood that more variants, words and verses will be added.

You gave John 7:53-8:11, the woman in adultery, as an example. This was ADDED by the TR. It was not the Critical Text that omitted it. The Critical Text is based on MSS that are much earlier than the TR and are thus closer to the original MSS, not allowing for as many variants and verses to be added.

Because something is stated in the early church fathers does not make it authoritative. The canon of Scripture was not authorised until AD 397 at the Council of Carthage.

As for Mark 16:9-20, it is not in the oldest MSS (check out Sinaiticus). It has been added in the TR.

You state, 'The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels'. Why don't you provide your source for this information? The fact is that the Critical Text differs from the TR because the TR has added to the earlier MSS.

It is NOT the Vatican manuscript. It is called the Vaticanus MSS because it was found in the Vatican library and is housed at the Vatican. It is a MSS that dates to about the 4th century. See HERE.

You state: 'Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is. A manuscript which is dated as having been copied during the 10th century could have been the fifth in a line of copies originating with the original autograph'. That's your hypothesis that needs to be tested.

You claim, 'Oz if you were saved with the King James along with millions of others around the world, why use another text?' That is not what I stated. I was saved through a proclamation of Jesus Christ and the only Bible in our house was a KJV. That's the one my parents bought for me. It was not because it was the most accurate available. It was availability in our rural, cane-farming community of Bundaberg, Qld.

You state the Critical Text,
  • omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33 [there is no virgin birth in the KJV]
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14:10 and 12
  • omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1:14
It's the other way around. The Textus Receptus ADDS these to the earlier MSS. It's a serious situation to ADD to Scripture.

You state, 'Example the New living translation renamed Homosexuals as temple prostitutes'. You don't even extend to me the courtesy of telling me where the New Living Translation uses that dynamic equivalence translation.

You are way too harsh on your judgment of the NLT re 'temple prostitutes'. Here is one assessment of the problem of translation in Leviticus:

In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as ‘sodomite,’ a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in ‘unnatural’ sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James translations inaccurately retain the word ‘sodomite’ even though today it refers specifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most other Bibles more accurately translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.

The exact meaning of the original passage in Leviticus is therefore unclear. Translators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:

  • homosexual behavior by either sex
  • sexual behavior between two men
  • sexual behavior between a man and a married man (or perhaps three people, including at least one man and one woman)
  • just anal sex between two men
  • just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
  • sexual activity between two men in a woman’s bed
Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate message won’t sell, which means it won’t get published. Deviating from traditional interpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporarily boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the use of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles. We’re stuck with this, guys. (Source)

Therefore, translating sodomite or homosexual as 'temple prostitute' is a legitimate translation of the meaning of the word. Seems like you have a beef to try to discredit modern translations, the NLT being one of them.

John MacArthur admits to temple prostitution as a problem in 1 Corinthians 6:
John MacArthur admits that the context of 1 Cor 6 was temple prostitution. Describing Corinthian Christians in the first century AD, he writes:

"They also lived in a society that was notoriously immoral, a society that, in the temple prostitution and other ways, actually glorified promiscuous sex. To have sexual relations with a prostitute was so common in Corinth that the practice came to be called "Corinthianizing." Many believers had formerly been involved in such immorality, and it was hard for them to break with the old ways and easy to fall back into them... it was also hard for them to give up their sexual immorality."

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, 1 Corinthians, John MacArthur, Moody Press, Chicago, 1984, p. 146.(Source)

I have this MacArthur commentary and have just checked out this quote. It is accurate for MacArthur's 1 Corinthians' commentary.

Therefore, for the NLT to replace 'sodomite' with 'temple prostitute' is accurate for the society in which the Corinthians and the Levitican Israelites lived. You are the one who is not understanding the culture and the dynamic equivalence translation process the NLT uses.

You quote the Trinitarian Bible Society on this issue. I don't expect anything other than KJV-Only from that society. It has been promoting that view for years, in spite of refutation after refutation of its misleading information.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He had 5 renderings ' of the translation simply because he retranslated the Latin does not diminish his work on the Textus Receptus.

Here is where the rubber meets the road.

He did not have 5 renderings.

Thus Erasmus had 3 manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts; 4 manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles; and only one manuscript of Revelation.

For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus' printed text. For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word "akatharta" (impure), but Erasmus' text reads "akatharthtos", a word unknown in Greek literature.

William Combs, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Sources for the Novum Instrumentum, p.45, n48, p. 46, n52

I do not understand the venom toward people who choose the King James as their Bible.
Personally I have been told not to visit a Church because I would not understand their bibles, it's a shame they do not understand my Bible.

Here again, you miss the point entirely. I use the KJV for teaching, preaching, and studying. As pointed out before, the Codex Bezae shows up to 18 different scribes/copyists working in the text. And we also know that Bezae's text of Acts was definitely used in the KJV. So for KJV Onlyists to say the KJV is the "preserved word of God" I would simply ask which one of the copyists was "inspired" by God? And, if it need revising over the course of 400 years, was there a mistake in the word to begin with? And why would God only "inspire" the men King James appointed and nobody else?

And on top of that, there is the issue of the Comma Johanneum.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
You obviously didn't take any notice of what I wrote in #35, It is NOT the Critical Text (UBS, Nestle-Aland) that has left out texts. It is the Textus Receptus (TR) that has ADDED texts because it had only 3 MSS from the 12th century. The more a MSS is copied, the higher the likelihood that more variants, words and verses will be added.

You gave John 7:53-8:11, the woman in adultery, as an example. This was ADDED by the TR. It was not the Critical Text that omitted it. The Critical Text is based on MSS that are much earlier than the TR and are thus closer to the original MSS, not allowing for as many variants and verses to be added.

Because something is stated in the early church fathers does not make it authoritative. The canon of Scripture was not authorised until AD 397 at the Council of Carthage.

As for Mark 16:9-20, it is not in the oldest MSS (check out Sinaiticus). It has been added in the TR.

You state, 'The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels'. Why don't you provide your source for this information? The fact is that the Critical Text differs from the TR because the TR has added to the earlier MSS.

It is NOT the Vatican manuscript. It is called the Vaticanus MSS because it was found in the Vatican library and is housed at the Vatican. It is a MSS that dates to about the 4th century. See HERE.

You state: 'Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is. A manuscript which is dated as having been copied during the 10th century could have been the fifth in a line of copies originating with the original autograph'. That's your hypothesis that needs to be tested.

You claim, 'Oz if you were saved with the King James along with millions of others around the world, why use another text?' That is not what I stated. I was saved through a proclamation of Jesus Christ and the only Bible in our house was a KJV. That's the one my parents bought for me. It was not because it was the most accurate available. It was availability in our rural, cane-farming community of Bundaberg, Qld.

You state the Critical Text,
  • omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33 [there is no virgin birth in the KJV]
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16
  • omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14:10 and 12
  • omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1:14
It's the other way around. The Textus Receptus ADDS these to the earlier MSS. It's a serious situation to ADD to Scripture.

You state, 'Example the New living translation renamed Homosexuals as temple prostitutes'. You don't even extend to me the courtesy of telling me where the New Living Translation uses that dynamic equivalence translation.

You are way too harsh on your judgment of the NLT re 'temple prostitutes'. Here is one assessment of the problem of translation in Leviticus:



Therefore, translating sodomite or homosexual as 'temple prostitute' is a legitimate translation of the meaning of the word. Seems like you have a beef to try to discredit modern translations, the NLT being one of them.

John MacArthur admits to temple prostitution as a problem in 1 Corinthians 6:


I have this MacArthur commentary and have just checked out this quote. It is accurate for MacArthur's 1 Corinthians' commentary.

Therefore, for the NLT to replace 'sodomite' with 'temple prostitute' is accurate for the society in which the Corinyythians and the Levitican Israelites lived. You are the one who is not understanding the culture and the dynamic equivalence translation process the NLT uses.

You quote the Trinitarian Bible Society on this issue. I don't expect anything other than KJV-Only from that society. It has been promoting that view for years, in spite of refutation after refutation of its misleading information.

Oz
You do realize that John MacArthur is a Calvinist?
The temple prostitutes issiue is a logical fallacy, why would a translation gather prostitutes that were Homosexuals?
The Textus Receptus has not added to the Critical text ,due to being translated before the Critical text.
The Alexandrian text was the basis of translation in 2nd Century A.D.as well ,where as the Critical text was from Egyptian translation.

Your statement is illogical due to your basis of the assumption the Critical text was not corruptible.
Erasmus translated both exposing error in the Vulgate but not dismissing it's usefulness.


Dynamic equivalence is simply a paraphrase based on opinion.

Yes I do have a beef with today's translations .
They have increased over the past 30 years ,and presume the King James is old fashioned.
Most new translations are by products of Westcott and Hort who were notorious in their theology.

I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO BOW OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION ,so I am done with replying.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Here is where the rubber meets the road.

He did not have 5 renderings.



William Combs, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Sources for the Novum Instrumentum, p.45, n48, p. 46, n52



Here again, you miss the point entirely. I use the KJV for teaching, preaching, and studying. As pointed out before, the Codex Bezae shows up to 18 different scribes/copyists working in the text. And we also know that Bezae's text of Acts was definitely used in the KJV. So for KJV Onlyists to say the KJV is the "preserved word of God" I would simply ask which one of the copyists was "inspired" by God? And, if it need revising over the course of 400 years, was there a mistake in the word to begin with? And why would God only "inspire" the men King James appointed and nobody else?

And on top of that, there is the issue of the Comma Johanneum.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Sir may I ask what you base your knowlage of Christ on?
You can not have but one truth it is absolute.
So having many text to study a person will arrive on his ideal of God..
The term Holy Bible does not allow for the cumulative efforts of different sources all in one accord.

God is not the author of confusion, and I would be carfull not to make a mistake on assumption.

I'm out of this thanks
 
Upvote 0