• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, and if one carefully reads the NT, it will be seen that satan tried to convince Jesus that He (Jesus) was the fallen angel in the wilderness and now satan simply tries to convince men of it.

The old serpent, has counterfeited the miracles, even by multiplying bread, but it is moldly bread.
when moses was doing miracles in exodus, turning water to blood, and turning a pole into a serpent, the magicians could do the same miracles, but to a lesser extent. Moses cobra ate up their serpents, and the water that was turned to blood was only a little bit, where in God's situation, the whole river was turned to blood. It just shows you that angels can cause sickness, heal, change the weather, cause accidents, possess people. They can do alot, and satan himself can do even more. But we have authority over all the demonic realm in Christ. But sometimes we must fast and pray. But Jesus says not to rejoice that we have authority over them, but rejoice that our name is found written in the Book of life. Amen!
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
So essentially, what is being said in the OP is that because the Scripture doesn't specifically name the KJ it has no Scriptural support.

Here is the bottom line. Has God preserved His word in any version of what we refer to as Scripture, in any language? Meaning, is there a Bible that I can hold in my hands, to read, and study, that I can know is the preserved inerrant Word of God?

Yes, or no?
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So essentially, what is being said in the OP is that because the Scripture doesn't specifically name the KJ it has no Scriptural support.

Well, that IS true! The KJVO myth is false, as it has no Scriptural support. (And, for that matter, so is all other "one-version-only" doctrine.)

Here is the bottom line. Has God preserved His word in any version of what we refer to as Scripture, in any language? Meaning, is there a Bible that I can hold in my hands, to read, and study, that I can know is the preserved inerrant Word of God?

Yes, or no?

Yes, in any & every translation that closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss. themselves. Given that most people don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek, we depend upon translations of those ancient mss. to read/hear God's word.

And the KJV is not inerrant. Since all Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, some human error or translator bias is inevitable.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Well, that IS true! The KJVO myth is false, as it has no Scriptural support. (And, for that matter, so is all other "one-version-only" doctrine.)

My question to you was ...
Here is the bottom line. Has God preserved His word in any version of what we refer to as Scripture, in any language? Meaning, is there a Bible that I can hold in my hands, to read, and study, that I can know is the preserved inerrant Word of God?

Yes, or no?

To which you replied: (I have divided your answer into the two natural divisions you yourself used.)

Part #1
Yes, in any & every translation that closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss. themselves. Given that most people don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek, we depend upon translations of those ancient mss. to read/hear God's word.

1) The first word you used was "Yes", answering in the affirmative, then you qualified that answer with the words, "that closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss. themselves".

Are you aware that the two MSS that are considered the "oldest and best" MSS by modern Textual Criticis (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) are actually more different (not in agreement), than they are the same (in agreement)?

Since these two MSS are in disagreement more than they are in agreement; and these two MSS are in fact considered the anchor of modern versions, how can anyone claim that any 'version' of the Bible that uses these two MSS as part of their foundation, "closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss. themselves"?

In other words, if two major textbooks disagree more than they agree, how can a single eclectic text be made that "closely follows" both of these sourses?

And the KJV is not inerrant. Since all Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, some human error or translator bias is inevitable.

Again my question was:
Here is the bottom line. Has God preserved His word in any version of what we refer to as Scripture, in any language? Meaning, is there a Bible that I can hold in my hands, to read, and study, that I can know is the preserved inerrant Word of God?

Yes, or no?
2) After just answering in the affirmative, and qualifying your answer with the words, "that closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss. themselves"; you then say, "And the KJV is not inerrant".

Okay, A) The Byzantine text readings are in fact very similar (and in some cases exact);
B ) The KJ translators met your requirements as you yourself stipulated.
How then can you say, "Yes, in any & every translation that closely follows its sources, as well as in the ancient Scriptural mss"; and then claim the KJ does not meet those requirements?

Then you say, "Since all Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, some human error or translator bias is inevitable"; wouldn't that mean you should have answered "No"?

Please explain ...
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
EASY!
First, I believe God has conveyed His word to us in the forms & manners HE has chosen, which happens to include His infallible word being translated by fallible men. I trust God to have given us His word as HE has chosen, & that it's accurate & completely true, even where the wording is different.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red, fast car.
The car I have is fast and red.
Etc.

Same message, worded differently.

Thus, I can pick up & hold a NASV, NKJV, KJV, ESV, etc. despite their human errors & know I have God's inerrant word in my hands, same as if I were able to hold all the Scriptural mss. at once. For instance, the KJV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 does not change the message that Herod arrested Peter, intending to hold him til the Jewish religious leadership was ready to deal with Peter themselves. (However, I prefer to teach God's word in mine & the audience's own language, contemporary English.)

And you still aren't dealing with the FACT that KJVO has no Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. That fact stumps & stymies all KJVOs, so very few of them will respond to that fact at all. Their ignoring it only wrecks their own credibility.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
EASY!
First, I believe God has conveyed His word to us in the forms & manners HE has chosen, which happens to include His infallible word being translated by fallible men. I trust God to have given us His word as HE has chosen, & that it's accurate & completely true, even where the wording is different.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red, fast car.
The car I have is fast and red.
Etc.

Same message, worded differently.
I'm not sure where you get your information, or if you have simply never seen, or read any of the text from B and Aleph (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)but is NOTHING like what you have described.

What I am referring to would be like omissions in a text (compared to the other), or different words altogether.

E.g. Matthew 6:25 B has the Greek word υμων; while in Aleph, it is omitted.

Again,
E.G. Matthew 6:7 we find υποκριται (hypocrites) in Βג syrcur; with εθνικοι (gentiles) in Aleph.

In the Gospels ALONE the textual variants are enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022

This is NOT a case of rearranged words; this is a case of thousands of textual differences between the two supposed best Greek MSS.

Thus, I can pick up & hold a NASV, NKJV, KJV, ESV, etc. despite their human errors & know I have God's inerrant word in my hands, same as if I were able to hold all the Scriptural mss. at once.

1) When the actual MSS differ as much as the MSS do that support the "Critical Text", how can any eclectic text follow "THEM" faithfully?

One of the rules of Textual Criticism is that the shorter text is preferred ... wouldn't that mean that the Greek MS that possesses the greatest amount of omissions should be followed? Why then does the NIV say ...

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?

The English "your" is rendered from the Greek υμων, which is omitted in Aleph ... making it the shorter reading.

2) The KJ is not based upon the same MSS as any of the modern versions ... how could they possibly say the same thing?


For instance, the KJV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 does not change the message that Herod arrested Peter, intending to hold him til the Jewish religious leadership was ready to deal with Peter themselves. (However, I prefer to teach God's word in mine & the audience's own language, contemporary English.)

Your entire Acts 12: 4 argument is based upon a false preposition of the facts. (In my opinion.)

And you still aren't dealing with the FACT that KJVO has no Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. That fact stumps & stymies all KJVOs, so very few of them will respond to that fact at all. Their ignoring it only wrecks their own credibility.
This is a strawman argument at best. The real question (again) is one of properly defining preservation.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Recommended for all:
The King James Only Controversy
51JfsDV-S3L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Great recommendation! Many many years ago at a Church I was attending, without knowing I became friends with a KJV-Onlyist, this short lived friendship caused me to dig deep into this issue. The recommended book by Dr. White is one of the resources I turned to for help. Dr. Carson also wrote a book on the same subject. Leading Bible Scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace has also written and spoken a great amount of helpful information on this topic. This is a topic where I believe emotions are best turned off, because a KJV-Onlyist will likely try to make it emotional, especially when and if they are unsucessful with a friendly approach. God given logic and reason over emotions prevail on this topic. I stay out of this debate, it is a touchy one, because it is one of those in-house debates where we do not want to destroy other people's faith (knowing the Scriptures are the foundation and basis of knowledge), we only want to cure a misplaced degree of trust in a translation (not the autographs or copies of), while building trust at the same time. It is a difficult balance to maintain, for anyone in a discussion of this nature.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Great recommendation! Many many years ago at a Church I was attending, without knowing I became friends with a KJV-Onlyist, this short lived friendship caused me to dig deep into this issue. The recommended book by Dr. White is one of the resources I turned to for help. Dr. Carson also wrote a book on the same subject. Leading Bible Scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace has also written and spoken a great amount of helpful information on this topic. This is a topic where I believe emotions are best turned off, because a KJV-Onlyist will likely try to make it emotional, especially when and if they are unsucessful with a friendly approach. God given logic and reason over emotions prevail on this topic. I stay out of this debate, it is a touchy one, because it is one of those in-house debates where we do not want to destroy other people's faith (knowing the Scriptures are the foundation and basis of knowledge), we only want to cure a misplaced degree of trust in a translation (not the autographs or copies of), while building trust at the same time. It is a difficult balance to maintain, for anyone in a discussion of this nature.
The only thing White is good at is misrepresenting facts. A work worth reading is ...
The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy Re: The King James Only Controversy by James White

by Alan James O’Reilly

it is an 818 page critique of White's work.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The only thing White is good at is misrepresenting facts. A work worth reading is ...The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy Re: The King James Only Controversy by James White

by Alan James O’Reilly

it is an 818 page critique of White's work.

Thou knowest not of which thy speaketh on thee matter, but thou exceedeth in thee art of rhetoric and selective "facts" which doth always leadeth to misrepresentation.

Intellectual integrity on the matter demands Bible Research which includes in depth analysis of the history of Bible translation, giving special attention to the history of English Bible translations.

First, from Wikipedia a quick glance into the history of KJV printing errors:

King James
The Wicked Bible renders Exodus 20:14 as "thou shalt commit adultery".
In various printings of the King James Version of the Bible, some of the more famous examples have been given their own names. Among them are:

  • The Blasphemous Comma: Several editions: Luke 23:32 reads "And there were also two other malefactors [crucified with Jesus]." It should have read "And there were also two others, malefactors."
  • "Judas Bible", from 1613: This Bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying "Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray" (Matthew 26:36). A second folio edition printed by Robert Barker, printer to King James I, is held in St. Mary's Church, Totnes, Devon, UK. In this copy, the misprint has been covered with a small slip of paper glued over the name of Judas.[10]
  • "Printers Bible", from 1612: In some copies Psalm 119:161 reads "Printers have persecuted me without a cause" rather than "Princes have persecuted me..."
  • "Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" or "Sinner's Bible", from 1631: Barker and Lucas: Omits an important "not" from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers were fined £300 and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today.[citation needed]
  • "More Sea Bible", from 1641: "...the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was more sea" rather than "...the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea." (Revelation21:1)
  • "Unrighteous Bible" or "Wicked Bible", from 1653: Cambridge Press: Another edition carrying this title omits a "not" before the word "inherit", making I Corinthians 6:9 read "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?..." In addition, Romans6:13 reads "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin..." where it should read "unrighteousness".
  • "Sin On Bible", from 1716: Jeremiah 31:34[11] reads "sin on more" rather than "sin no more".
  • "Vinegar Bible", from 1717: J. Baskett, Clarendon Press: The chapter heading for Luke 20 reads "The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of "The Parable of the Vineyard." One reviewer called this particular edition "a Baskett full of errors," what with its being replete with numerous other specimens of typographical errata throughout. One copy sold for $5,000 in 2008.[12]
  • "The Fools Bible", from 1763: Psalm 14:1 reads "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God", rather than "...there is no God". The printers were fined £3,000 and all copies ordered destroyed.[citation needed]
  • "Denial Bible", from 1792: The name Philip is substituted for Peter as the apostle who would deny Jesus in Luke 22:34.
  • "Murderer's Bible", from 1801: "Murmurers" is printed as "murderers", making Jude 16 read: "These are murderers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."
  • "Lions Bible", from 1804: 1 Kings 8:19 reads "thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions", rather than "loins". This edition had another error in Numbers 35:18 which read: "The murderer shall surely be put together" rather than "...put to death".
  • "To-remain Bible", from 1805: In Galatians 4:29 a proof-reader had written in "to remain" in the margin, as an answer to whether a comma should be deleted. The note inadvertently became part of the text, making the edition read "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain, even so it is now."
  • "Discharge Bible", from 1806: "Discharge" replaces "charge" making I Timothy 5:21 read "I discharge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."
  • "Standing Fishes Bible", from 1806: "Fishes" replaced "fishers" making Ezekiel 47:10 read "And it shall come to pass, that the fishes shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many."
  • "Idle Shepherd", from 1809: Zechariah 11:17 reads "the idle shepherd" rather than "idol shepherd".
  • "Ears To Ear Bible", from 1810: Edition which makes Matthew 13:43 read: "...Who has ears to ear, let him hear." The correct phrase should be "ears to hear". In the same edition, Hebrews 9:14 comes out as "How much more shall the blood of Christ ... purge your conscience from good works [should be "dead works"] to serve the living God."
  • "Wife-hater Bible", from 1810: "Wife" replaces "life" in this edition, making Luke 14:26 redundantly read "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife also, he cannot be my disciple."
  • "The Large Family Bible", from 1820: Isaiah 66:9 reads: "Shall I bring to birth and not cease to bring forth?" rather than "Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth?".
  • "Rebecca's Camels Bible", from 1823: "Camels" replaces "damsels" in one instance, making Genesis 24:61 read "And Rebecca arose, and her camels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebecca and went his way."
  • "Affinity Bible", from 1927: Contains a table of family affinities that includes the line "A man may not marry his grandmother's wife."
  • "Owl Bible", from 1944: "Owl" replaces "own", making 1 Peter 3:5 read, "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands." The error was caused by a printing plate with a damaged letter n.

Actually viewed a couple of these at a Bible museum where they also had a reproduction of the Guttenberg Press. Fascinating stuff!

Next, from the Bible Research link provided above, a quick glance of minor changes to the KVJ throughout it's long history of revisions:

§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT
The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterix "*" are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).

* Mat 3:12 Add he before will burn up. Rejected by Scrivener.
Mat 6:3 Add hand after right. Approved by Scrivener.
* Mat 9:34 Omit the before devils.
* Mat 12:23 Add not before this the son.
* Mat 13:6 Read had no root instead of had not root.
Mat 16:16 Add the before Christ.
Mat 16:19 Add and before whatsoever thou shalt loose.
Mat 26:75 Read word instead of words.
Mat 27:22 Read Pilate saith instead of Pilate said.
* Mat 27:52 Add the before saints.
Mark 2:4 Add the before press.
Mark 5:6 Read he ran instead of he came.
* Mark 6:7 Read he called instead of he calleth.
* Mark 6:53 Read Gennesaret instead of Genesareth. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
Mark 10:18 Read [there is] none good but one instead of there is no man good, but one.
Mark 11:8 Read branches off the trees instead of branches of the trees.
Luke 1:3 Add all before things.
Luke 1:74 Read hand instead of hands.
Luke 3:21 Omit and before it came to pass.
* Luke 8:8 Add had before said.
* Luke 11:16 Read others instead of other.
Luke 17:34 Add and before the other shall be left.
* Luke 18:9 Read others instead of other.
Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.
Luke 20:12 Read sent a third instead of sent the third.
Luke 23:19 Read cast into prison instead of cast in prison.
John 5:18 Transpose not only because he to because he not only.
John 7:16 Add and said after Jesus answered them.
John 8:30 Read these words instead of those words.
John 11:3 Read his sisters instead of his sister.
* John 11:34 Read They said unto him instead of They say unto him.
John 12:22 Read tell Jesus instead of told Jesus.
John 15:20 Read than his lord instead of than the Lord.
* John 16:25 Add but before the time. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
John 21:17 Read He saith unto him instead of he said unto him.
Acts 2:22 Add and before wonders.
* Acts 5:34 Add the before law.
Acts 7:35 Read by the hand instead of by the hands.
Acts 8:32 Read his shearer instead of the shearer.
* Acts 10:9 Add top after upon the house.
* Acts 18:5 Add the before spirit.
* Acts 19:19 Transpose also of them to of them also.
* Acts 24:14 Add in before the prophets.
Acts 24:24 Read Jewess instead of Jew.
Acts 27:18 Read And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next [day] instead of And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day.
Rom 3:24 Read Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.
Rom 4:12 Add who before also walk.
Rom 6:12 Transpose reign therefore to therefore reign.
* Rom 7:2 Read law of her husband instead of law of the husband.
Rom 7:13 Transpose Was that then to Was then that.
Rom 11:28 Read for your sakes instead of for your sake.
Rom 12:2 Read and acceptable instead of that acceptable.
Rom 14:6 Read regardeth the day instead of regardeth a day.
Rom 14:10 Add for before we shall all stand.
* 1 Cor 4:9 Read appointed to death instead of approved to death.
1 Cor 7:32 Read things that belong instead of things that belongeth.
1 Cor 10:28 Add for before the earth is.
1 Cor 12:28 Read helps, governments instead of helps in governments.
* 1 Cor 13:2 Read have not charity instead of have no charity.
* 1 Cor 14:15 Add I before will pray.
* 1 Cor 14:18 Read than ye all instead of than you all.
1 Cor 14:23 Read one place instead of some place.
1 Cor 15:6 Read After that instead of And that.
1 Cor 15:41 Read and another glory of the moon instead of another of the moon.
1 Cor 15:48 Add also before that are earthy.
1 Cor 16:22 Read anathema, Maranatha instead of Anathema Maranatha.
* 2 Cor 5:1 Read made with hands instead of made with hand.
2 Cor 5:2 Read groan, earnestly desiring instead of groan earnestly, desiring.
2 Cor 5:20 Omit that before be ye reconciled.
2 Cor 8:21 Add also before in the sight.
2 Cor 9:5 Add and before not.
2 Cor 9:5 Add as before of covetousness.
2 Cor 9:6 Add also after reap twice.
2 Cor 11:26 Read journeyings instead of journeying.
2 Cor 11:32 Add of the Damascenes after the city.
* Gal Title Add the Apostle before to the Galatians. 1611 followed another source. 1769: E. 1611: S.
Gal 3:13 Add a before tree.
* Gal 5:15 Add that after take heed.
* Eph 1:9 Read hath purposed instead of had purposed.
Eph 4:24 Read the new man instead of that new man.
* Eph 6:24 Add Amen at end of verse. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S E. 1611: Vul.
Phil 4:6 Read requests instead of request.
2 Th 2:14 Read our Lord Jesus Christ instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 1:4 Add godly before edifying.
* 1 Tim 2:9 Read shamefacedness instead of shamefastness.
2 Tim 1:7 Add and before of love.
* 2 Tim 1:12 Omit I before am persuaded.
2 Tim 2:19 Read this seal instead of the seal.
2 Tim 4:8 Add all before them also.
2 Tim 4:13 Add and the books after bring [with thee].
Heb 3:10 Read their heart instead of their hearts.
Heb 8:8 Add with before the house of Judah.
Heb 11:23 Add were before not afraid.
Heb 12:1 Omit unto before the race.
James 5:2 Add are before motheaten.
1 Pet 2:1 Add all before evil speakings.
1 Pet 2:5 Read sacrifices instead of sacrifice.
1 Pet 2:6 Add also after Wherefore.
* 1 Pet 5:10 Read called us unto instead of called us into.
1 John 2:16 Add and before the lust of the eyes.
* 1 John 3:17 Read have need instead of hath need.
1 John 5:12 Add of God after hath not the Son.
Jude 1:25 Add both before now and ever.
Rev 1:4 Add which are before in Asia.
Rev 1:11 Add unto before Philadelphia.
Rev 5:13 Add and before honour.
Rev 5:13 Add and before glory.
Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.
Rev 13:6 Read them that dwell instead of them that dwelt.
* Rev 17:4 Read precious stones instead of precious stone.
* Rev 22:2 Read on either side instead of of either side.

Source

Another source on the same topic by Bible Scholar Daniel B. Wallace: Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration

My mother happens to own an older KJV Bible, an older revision with minor differences, these facts (and countless others) laid out above are what they are. The Lord God almighty assuredly did not re-inspire His word into English, else we have a low view of inspiration considering the above. However, He has guided and helped countless Bible translators including the 1611 KJV translators, and I recommend reading their own words pertaining to their work in translating without kjvo glasses, just read them as they are.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
1) I do not deny printing errors of the KJB from days gone by. But that is just what they are ... printing errors.
2) Yes, Scrivener was a Textual Critic, and as such, relied too much on the rules of Textual Criticism reated by those who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture.
3) Now think about this for a moment ... Daniel Wallace has a great lecture on the reliability of the New Testament text. He speaks of the preponderance of evidence concerning the New Testament. He, like many others believes that the original words of the Biblical text are preserved somewhere in the Manuscript Tradition.

There can only be one wording of the original text, not five, ten, or twenty; just one. Yet, not a single modern scholar will say, this is that original wording. The "____" Bible is God's holy word.

I once read an article written by textual Critics where the writer stated that Textual Criticism has brought us to the point where we know within 100 words, the exact wording of the original Biblical text.

As I taught on this subject some 10 years ago; I asked my class; Why do you suppose it is that Textual Critics don't just gather the top 100 Biblical scholars on the planet today, give them each one (1) word of the 100 to search out, and find what the original word should be in that case. Then, present to the world the known 100% pure original Biblical text?

Someone said, I don't know ... why?

The excuses continue to pour in as to why that cannot be done.

As per your first comment ...
Thou knowest not of which thy speaketh on thee matter, but thou exceedeth in thee art of rhetoric and selective "facts" which doth always leadeth to misrepresentation.
You have absolutely no idea what I know ... but I'll make you a challenge, Go listen to James White, and bring me any argument he presents against the KJ.

I have never heard him present a single argument relating to the history of the superiority of the KJ Bible that cannot be refuted.

Tell me all about the inferior Grrek texts, Erasmus, whatever ... every one of his arguments are strawman arguments.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1) I do not deny printing errors of the KJB from days gone by. But that is just what they are ... printing errors.
2) Yes, Scrivener was a Textual Critic, and as such, relied too much on the rules of Textual Criticism reated by those who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture.
3) Now think about this for a moment ... Daniel Wallace has a great lecture on the reliability of the New Testament text. He speaks of the preponderance of evidence concerning the New Testament. He, like many others believes that the original words of the Biblical text are preserved somewhere in the Manuscript Tradition.

I agree with Dr. Wallace, I agree with his position on the whole matter. I've also listened to a short series he did on the history of English Bible translation, it encouraged me to seek more content by him.

There can only be one wording of the original text, not five, ten, or twenty; just one. Yet, not a single modern scholar will say, this is that original wording. The "____" Bible is God's holy word.

As language changes, English even, so must the wording. Which words? That's for higher minds than mine, the wranglings of specialized Christian linguists with a pre-commitment to a high view of Scripture in the original languages. Then there are words which honestly do not transliterate well from the receptor language to English. It is what it is, just the facts.

I once read an article written by textual Critics where the writer stated that Textual Criticism has brought us to the point where we know within 100 words, the exact wording of the original Biblical text.

As I taught on this subject some 10 years ago; I asked my class; Why do you suppose it is that Textual Critics don't just gather the top 100 Biblical scholars on the planet today, give them each one (1) word of the 100 to search out, and find what the original word should be in that case. Then, present to the world the known 100% pure original Biblical text?

Someone said, I don't know ... why?

The excuses continue to pour in as to why that cannot be done.

As I already noted, language does not stand still, and the KJV is a perfect example. Can you sit down and read a 1611 KJV? The English is so far removed from today's English as to not even be recognized as English. There will always be a need for translators. But as you also probably already know, it's not as simple as that. For instance, the issue of textual MSS families (ex: Byzantine/Alexandrian), the issue of pieces of fragments, parchment, vellum, scrolls preserved on less perishable to more perishable materials and the issue of dates, not to mention scribal errors and the differences between manuscripts. If it were all so simple, it would have already been done and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As per your first comment ...

You have absolutely no idea what I know ... but I'll make you a challenge, Go listen to James White, and bring me any argument he presents against the KJ.

I have never heard him present a single argument relating to the history of the superiority of the KJ Bible that cannot be refuted.

Tell me all about the inferior Grrek texts, Erasmus, whatever ... every one of his arguments are strawman arguments.

True, I don't know what you know, touche.

As for Dr. White, I've not listened to or read Dr. White in quite some time, well apart from his support for Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church.

As for the challenge, no thanks, did not join the party late in thread looking for debate, and if you had been more generous to brother White, I either would not have responded or started the response differently.

Anyway like I said read the translators preface to the 1611 KJV, because they themselves do not have the same view as the KJVO does of their work.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure where you get your information, or if you have simply never seen, or read any of the text from B and Aleph (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)but is NOTHING like what you have described.

What I am referring to would be like omissions in a text (compared to the other), or different words altogether.

E.g. Matthew 6:25 B has the Greek word υμων; while in Aleph, it is omitted.

Again,
E.G. Matthew 6:7 we find υποκριται (hypocrites) in Βג syrcur; with εθνικοι (gentiles) in Aleph.

In the Gospels ALONE the textual variants are enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022

This is NOT a case of rearranged words; this is a case of thousands of textual differences between the two supposed best Greek MSS.



1) When the actual MSS differ as much as the MSS do that support the "Critical Text", how can any eclectic text follow "THEM" faithfully?

One of the rules of Textual Criticism is that the shorter text is preferred ... wouldn't that mean that the Greek MS that possesses the greatest amount of omissions should be followed? Why then does the NIV say ...

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?

The English "your" is rendered from the Greek υμων, which is omitted in Aleph ... making it the shorter reading.

2) The KJ is not based upon the same MSS as any of the modern versions ... how could they possibly say the same thing?




Your entire Acts 12: 4 argument is based upon a false preposition of the facts. (In my opinion.)


This is a strawman argument at best. The real question (again) is one of properly defining preservation.



Still, you DO NOT address the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support. That fact makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot!

As for the mss. none of us were there when any of them were made; we don't know who made most of them where or when. So, we must TRUST GOD to have presented His word to us as HE chose.

As for Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, I've never said they're the BEST mss, but the stories of their respective preservations to this day show indications of GOD'S hand in the process. Tischendorf founs S by chance as it was in the scrap heap to be burned, while the Vatican burned all mss. it took possession of, that didn't agree with THEIR perceptions, and Vaticanus certainly didn't so agree. But they preserved it anyway!

An for "Easter" in THE kjv's Acts 12:4, what I presented is FACT, whether you agree or not, and you CANNOT show me that 'pascha' meant anything but PASSOVER when Luke wrote "Acts".

Now, until you FACE THE FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support, YOUR arguments are considered strawmen. That fact is the ace of trumps.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
1) I do not deny printing errors of the KJB from days gone by. But that is just what they are ... printing errors.
2) Yes, Scrivener was a Textual Critic, and as such, relied too much on the rules of Textual Criticism reated by those who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture.
3) Now think about this for a moment ... Daniel Wallace has a great lecture on the reliability of the New Testament text. He speaks of the preponderance of evidence concerning the New Testament. He, like many others believes that the original words of the Biblical text are preserved somewhere in the Manuscript Tradition.

There can only be one wording of the original text, not five, ten, or twenty; just one. Yet, not a single modern scholar will say, this is that original wording. The "____" Bible is God's holy word.

I once read an article written by textual Critics where the writer stated that Textual Criticism has brought us to the point where we know within 100 words, the exact wording of the original Biblical text.

As I taught on this subject some 10 years ago; I asked my class; Why do you suppose it is that Textual Critics don't just gather the top 100 Biblical scholars on the planet today, give them each one (1) word of the 100 to search out, and find what the original word should be in that case. Then, present to the world the known 100% pure original Biblical text?

Someone said, I don't know ... why?

The excuses continue to pour in as to why that cannot be done.

As per your first comment ...

You have absolutely no idea what I know ... but I'll make you a challenge, Go listen to James White, and bring me any argument he presents against the KJ.

I have never heard him present a single argument relating to the history of the superiority of the KJ Bible that cannot be refuted.

Tell me all about the inferior Grrek texts, Erasmus, whatever ... every one of his arguments are strawman arguments.

The strawmen are in the pro-KJVO arguments, as NO KJVO will face the FACT that the KJVO myth has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! That fact nollies any and all pro-KJVO arguments.

WHY WON'T YOU KJVOS LAY YOUR PRIDE ASIDE & FACE THAT FACT??????????????
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Pardon me if at times I "sound" disrespectful, but the refusal of KJVOs to face the music of the KJVO myth's having no Scriptural support doesn't sit too well. After all, NO doctrine of faith/worship that doesn't come from Scripture is true! And the KJVO myth is absolutely NOT found in Scripture by the least quark of the slightest implication!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The strawmen are in the pro-KJVO arguments, as NO KJVO will face the FACT that the KJVO myth has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! That fact nollies any and all pro-KJVO arguments.

WHY WON'T YOU KJVOS LAY YOUR PRIDE ASIDE & FACE THAT FACT??????????????
There are over 400 "versions" of the NT, and over 100 versions of the OT. These many versions each come with a copyright. in order to obtain a copyright, one must have a new work that is substantially different from all other works of it's kind.

The Apostle Paul wrote a single Epistle to the Romans (this is one example of 66); yet there are over 400 versions of his Epistle, all having copyrights, proving that they are not the same.

How can 400 different versions of the same exact text bring the same conclusion?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dan61861
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You are (in my opinion) committing a word concept fallacy. A couple examples of the word concept fallacy are the the doctrines of the Trinty, and the rapture. While neither of these words is found in Scripture, the concept of both is sure.

So it is with the doctrine of Preservation. The "words" of Scripture cannot be preserved in multiple versions, using different words, or even ommitting words, or complete sentences. That is what you fail to address.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You are (in my opinion) committing a word concept fallacy. A couple examples of the word concept fallacy are the the doctrines of the Trinty, and the rapture. While neither of these words is found in Scripture, the concept of both is sure.

So it is with the doctrine of Preservation. The "words" of Scripture cannot be preserved in multiple versions, using different words, or even ommitting words, or complete sentences. That is what you fail to address.
I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast & red.
I have a car. It's red & fast.
My car is fast and red.
Etc, etc.
Same message, different words. WHICH IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, AND WHY? And, BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you say the KJV is the only "official" English Bible translation, since the KJV ITSELF says no such thing? (The AV 1611's preface, "To The Reader", conveniently left outta most current KJV editions, shows that not even the KJV's makers were KJVO!)
If MAN can do it, why can't GOD do it?
With all due respect...
Again...STILL NOT ADDRESSING the fact of NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth! Man's opinions & guesswork are no substitute for SCRIPTURE!
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟123,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are over 400 "versions" of the NT, and over 100 versions of the OT. These many versions each come with a copyright. in order to obtain a copyright, one must have a new work that is substantially different from all other works of it's kind.

The Apostle Paul wrote a single Epistle to the Romans (this is one example of 66); yet there are over 400 versions of his Epistle, all having copyrights, proving that they are not the same.

How can 400 different versions of the same exact text bring the same conclusion?

So, WHO among men decides which one is "official", and BY WHAT AUTHORITY, as Scripture doesn't choose one?
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
65
Pennsylvania
✟41,705.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
So, WHO among men decides which one is "official", and BY WHAT AUTHORITY, as Scripture doesn't choose one?
Matthew 6:7 we find υποκριται (hypocrites) in Βג syrcur; with εθνικοι (gentiles) in Aleph ...

Which is correct?

This is Not a case of differently arranged words, this is a case of two MSS having two completely different words. Which is correct?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.