Religions

[selfinflikted]

Nevermind that the KJVO is itself a translation and not the original.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sidebar:
was soundly debunked some 35 years ago by Dr. Donald A. Carson -- in a great little book entitled: The King James Version Debate - A Plea for Realism.

To be fair, it's not really that hard.

If the KJV-onlyist says they only accept the Authorized Version of 1611, just ask them to quote you some passages from their KJV. You are almost certainly guaranteed to not get a quote from the AV of 1611, but either from the 1769 Cambridge of 1769 Oxford revisions. Because by the 1760s the Authorized Version (called such because it was authorized by the British Crown to be used in the Church of England) there had been so many updates and revisions to the text of the AV that it was necessary to produce a standardized text in order to provide uniformity in the Church of England. And so the universities of Oxford and Cambridge both undertook the task to produce a standardized text. And they do differ from one another, just as they differ from the original 1611 edition--not just in terms of orthography and spelling, but in terms of content.

You will almost certainly never get an actual quote from the 1611, because most 1611 KJV-only types don't have, and and have never read, the 1611.

Additionally one can point out the fact that from 1611 until about the 1880s the KJV, in all editions and revisions up to that time, contained the Deuterocanonical books under the heading of "Apocrypha", and if you go online and look at old 19th century Bibles you will find, consistently, that they were KJV Bibles with "Apocrypha". Removing the Deuterocanonicals was a publishing decision made just over a century ago. It's that recent.

Or one can go ahead and read the actual 1611's Introduction to the Reader.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nevermind that the KJVO is itself a translation and not the original.

KJV-onlyism is predicated upon a false history that says that all Byzantine style manuscripts agree with one another (they don't) and that these are the Textus Receptus (they aren't) and that this is what the KJV is based upon (only partially true). Which becomes a moot point because once one demonstrates discrepancies among the Byzantine style texts, of which there are hundreds; and that the KJV is the result of critical analysis of seven critical editions of the New Testament which did not agree amongst themselves (five editions of Erasmus' Novum Testamentum Graece, the Stephanos text, and the Beza text); and that the Textus Receptus is, fundamentally, an anachronistic Greek text produced after the KJV was published which contained the specific readings the KJV uses from these seven critical Greek editions--if you do that then the KJV-onlyist will simply pick up the KJV and say, "This is what's right."

So while in order to support the chief authority of the KJV a false history of texts will be presented, but those texts themselves are irrelevant in fact, because it's the KJV itself which is inspired not the source material (unless when arguing the source material as proof the KJV's importance in which case it's relevant and inspired again, until it's not).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[selfinflikted]

Great info, thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

Additionally one can point out the fact that from 1611 until about the 1880s the KJV, in all editions and revisions up to that time,

As Gail Riplinger pointed out, a Diamond was created in 1611, and then was polished to a high-gloss.

As I understand it, we use the AV1611, fifth edition.

 

[Gracchus]

Forest, trees, thickets.... Some times you have to stand outside to appreciate the totality. Mohammed and his winged horse, the Xenu vs. Kolob controversy: these things most Christians would call ridiculous. But talking snakes, bushes and jackasses, original sin, vicarious atonement: these camels can be swallowed easier than an gnat.
Jesus didn't write the Nicene Creed and the Apostles never chanted the Apostles' Creed. Nor did any of them deify the New Testament, which hadn't been written. (They apparently did fine without it.) It wasn't a requirement to treat others decently. So much ornamental dogma, doctrine and ritual has been added that the essentials of what Jesus was trying to teach has been lost. And Christians have been arguing, anathematizing, torturing and murdering each other over those excrescences for nearly two millenia. (To say nothing of laying up treasures in this world, and taking whatever they could at the point of a sword!)
I don't think Christians realize what they look like from the outside. And they are obviously accustomed to the stench.

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

That's all that's required. Apparently it is more than Christians can manage.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As Gail Riplinger pointed out, a Diamond was created in 1611, and then was polished to a high-gloss.

As I understand it, we use the AV1611, fifth edition.

In other words, updating and revising the text of the 1611 is fine, because--well just because; but further revisions, and fresh translations pulling from a much wider pool of manuscripts which often were far older in order to provide as best as possible English translation of Scripture is wrong, because, apparently, just because.

In spite of the fact that, for example, the Comma Johanneum doesn't exist in any accepted Byzantine texts and Erasmus only included it (with great hesitation and personal disagreement) in his third edition because A) the powers that be insisted and B) a Greek codex was presented to him with it containing it, though this codex is likely not much older than Erasmus himself (the Codex Montfortianus); and as such the Comma is a foreign object uncomfortably jammed into the later editions of Erasmus.

As such, the Comma is not merely an example of a variant reading, such as in the case of variants of 1 Timothy 3:16 where the Byzantine text-types typically have theos and the Alexandrian text-types have 'hos; but is an example of an extensively, extremely late, addition to the biblical text which virtually every single modern translation has accurately not included.

A person interested in having an accurate translation of the Scriptures should desire that what they read is a solid representation of the best manuscript readings. Which is exactly why the translation committees behind the original 1611 did what they did, it's why revisions were made later to provide better readings; it's why further translation projects, revisions, and updates are continued to be made. For the exact same reasons the 1611 was made.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

... but further revisions, and fresh translations pulling from a much wider pool of manuscripts which often were far older in order to provide as best as possible English translation of Scripture is wrong, because, apparently, just because.

No, not "just because."

That "far older pool of manuscripts" was found because the common people never used them.

Like the family bible that sits on the coffee table outlasting a brand-new Bible that is used everyday.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, not "just because."

That "far older pool of manuscripts" was found because the common people never used them.

Like the family bible that sits on the coffee table outlasting a brand-new Bible that is used everyday.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

On what basis do you make this assertion?

-CryptoLutheran

I would still like an answer to this question, but let's also look at it this way:

Presumably your assertion is that we have all these manuscripts because they were just sitting around gathering dust; if this is the case and we assume for a moment that we have the older Alexandrian text type manuscripts because of their non-use--presumably because used texts would be worn and deteriorate easily--then we should expect that the largest body of manuscripts ought to be "non-used". Except that the Byzantine text type is by far the most extensive, not the Alexandrian text type or the Western text type. The Alexandrian text type is represented in the oldest manuscripts, but it is the Byzantine which is most extensive.

If use and non-use is indicated by availability, then we must conclude that it is the Alexandrian text type that prevailed as the textual tradition of choice for most Christians as we a sizeably smaller number of their type than the Byzantine. And yet those 16th century scholars--Erasmus, Stephanos, and Beza--relied exclusively on recent Byzantine text type manuscripts because it's all they had. And it is upon these that they made their critical editions which were then used later by the translation committees which produced the King James.

It should then follow that the Byzantine texts are less reliable given their "non-use" due to their extensive availability and as such critical editions based solely upon them and translations upon these would, indeed, need improvement upon discovering manuscripts demonstrative of use rather than non-use.

Of course the whole issue of use and non-use is fundamentally moot, but again, I would be interested in hearing from whence you are able to make the assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course the whole issue of use and non-use is fundamentally moot, but again, I would be interested in hearing from whence you are able to make the assertion.

Sorry, CL.

End of the line on discussing my KJVO stance.

I don't need the third degree.

I've seen what being a Heinz-57 supporter has done to peoples' beliefs.

Especially in the area of believing Genesis 1:1 says "heavens" (plural), and I want no part of it.

I notice you left your BIBLE VERSION blank in your profile.

That speaks volumes to me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I notice you left your BIBLE VERSION blank in your profile.

That speaks volumes to me.

I left a lot of things blank in my profile.

I don't have a definitive Bible translation, I don't use just one. My go-to is often either the ESV or NRSV. I also make it a habit of visiting the blue letter Bible website and looking at the underlying Greek and Hebrew; for the New Testament one can look at either the TR or the Nestle-Aland.

So, you know, you could have just asked.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you know, you could have just asked.

Sure, I'll ask.

Was Nymphas in the Bible a male or female?

Colossians 4:15 [KJV] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossians 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

Any answer you give that isn't either four letters (male) or six (female), I probably won't address.

I'm not interested in five paragraphs of speaking in tongues.

Which is it? male or female?

Or, if you don't know, admit it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sure, I'll ask.

Was Nymphas in the Bible a male or female?

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Any answer you give that isn't either four letters (male) or six (female), I probably won't address.

I'm not interested in five paragraphs of speaking in tongues.

Which is it? male or female?

Or, if you don't know, admit it.

Don't know, its form in the text is Nymphan rather than Nymphas (except in the Tischendorf). And there seems to be disagreement as to the gender of the individual.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Or one can go ahead and read the actual 1611's Introduction to the Reader.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, that would pretty much end the King James Only person's argent. They were not Biblicists (the scholars who worked on the King James Version) and would certainly have expected future revisions (in an attempt to get closer and closer to what might have been in the extant manuscripts) and embraced the opportunity to explore the numerous manuscripts we have in our time.

The rest you have written is right on the button, but as this is a cult (KJVO) it's devotees are generally unwilling to examine anything which will change their minds -- sort of hanging onto to (Prof.?) Gail Riplinger's stories, in place of the facts.

It's rooted in some rather unqualified data, the sort which poured out of Jack Chick's sensational comics.

Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia mistakenly calls it a movement (or would that be graciously?) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, that would pretty much end the King James Only person's argent. They were not Biblicists (the scholars who worked on the King James Version) and would certainly have expected future revisions (in an attempt to get closer and closer to what might have been in the extant manuscripts) and embraced the opportunity to explore the numerous manuscripts we have in our time.

The rest you have written is right on the button, but as this is a cult (KJVO) it's devotees are generally unwilling to examine anything which will change their minds -- sort of hanging onto to (Prof.?) Gail Riplinger's stories, in place of the facts.

It's rooted in some rather unqualified data, the sort which poured out of Jack Chick's sensational comics.

My favorite Chick comic involved time-traveling Jesuits who started Islam.

For reals.

Just in case someone thinks this might be a parody of a Chick tract, from the lion's den itself: https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Don't know, its form in the text is Nymphan rather than Nymphas (except in the Tischendorf). And there seems to be disagreement as to the gender of the individual.

-CryptoLutheran

Back in my days as a KING JAMES ONLY PERSON, I used to hold the KING JAMES ENGLISH TRANSLATION as the standard (not understanding such things as Textual Criticism -- actually it was more a case of resisting that) -- but thankfully the friends I had were patient and I eventually found the NET Bible to be very helpful -- Here is the footnote. (I shan't do this again, as I am sure those who want to can make the effort to study -- instead of roll on with the comparisons):

'20 tc If the name Nympha is accented with a circumflex on the ultima (Νυμφᾶν, Numfan), then it refers to a man; if it receives an acute accent on the penult (Νύμφαν), the reference is to a woman. Scribes that considered Nympha to be a man’s name had the corresponding masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ here (autou, “his”; so D [F G] Ψ Ï), while those who saw Nympha as a woman read the feminine αὐτῆς here (auth", “her”; B 0278 6 1739
[*] 1881 sa). Several mss (א A C P 075 33 81 104 326 1175 2464 bo) have αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”), perhaps because of indecisiveness on the gender of Nympha, perhaps because they included ἀδελφούς (adelfou", here translated “brothers and sisters”) as part of the referent. (Perhaps because accents were not part of the original text, scribes were particularly confused here.) The harder reading is certainly αὐτῆς, and thus Nympha should be considered a woman.'

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Colossians+4

 

[PsychoSarah]

My favorite Chick comic involved time-traveling Jesuits who started Islam.

For reals.

Just in case someone thinks this might be a parody of a Chick tract, from the lion's den itself: https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

-CryptoLutheran

How would one even make a parody of a Chick tract? They practically are parodies, except exceedingly insulting and not funny.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

My favorite Chick comic involved time-traveling Jesuits who started Islam.

For reals.

Just in case someone thinks this might be a parody of a Chick tract, from the lion's den itself: https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah, I read them all. Jack Chick and his devotees were on FIRE alright, but not HOLY fire, it was disgusting and hateful stuff.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How would one even make a parody of a Chick tract? They practically are parodies, except exceedingly insulting and not funny.

Have you read the Cthulu tract? It's a pretty hilarious parody. Though I will concede that an attempt at parodying a Chick tract by addressing the same basic stuff his tracts address would be difficult. Even if being exceedingly insulting and not funny (actual Chick tracts already have that covered).

-CryptoLutheran