The KJVO myth...

[Concord1968]

This is, in fact, Jack Chick inspired conspiracy theories......

 

[createdtoworship]

The "forgeries" stuff is a forgery itself.

And, do you **KNOW** the "better" mss. didn't ADD words?

what I am saying is you look into harry sturz works on it, which I posted earlier. The church fathers are quoting from the "missing verses." That is not a good sign for saying they were added.

 

[ViaCrucis]

not when they are missing much of God's words. 251 verses to be exact are completely missing from modern translations.

False. Some translations don't have some verses or portions of verses that are found in the KJV; but the statement that they are "missing" is misleading. One could just as easily claim the KJV adds verses to the Bible and it would be equally as true.

The bible says in revelation if you take words from the Bible God will take away from your life out of the book of life, and if you add words to the Bible God will add curses to your life....

No, it in fact doesn't say that. St. John in his Apocalypse writes a warning against anyone who would add or take away from the Apocalypse which he was writing. It is a reference about the Apocalypse alone.

This is such a well known fact that bart ehrman criticizes inspiration saying some of the most well known bible verses were not in the original text. And he was right partly, the existing manuscripts that we have that are older, were forged by vatican and these are missing over 200 verses.

Meaningless conspiracy theory.

But from other posters many quotes of the verses from founding church fathers showed byzantine style not alexandrian styles. So apparently the founding fathers had access to an early KJV that is destroyed now. I would venture to say destroyed in alexandria due to fire.

List of Omitted Bible Verses - Textus Receptus

Since the KJV didn't exist until it was published in 1611 it's pretty safe to say that, no, the ancient fathers didn't have access to an early KJV. What they did have were the various scrolls and codices, copies of the Scriptures; and which by their own admission did not always agree with one another at the time. What would later be called the Byzantine text-type developed, became the most common because of its continued use in the Byzantine period in the East. In the West, however, obviously it was the Vulgate that grew to prominence. It wasn't until the early modern period, in the 16th century, that western scholars grew more interested in the Greek text, which is--in part--what prompted the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam in his work, resulting in the five editions of his Greek New Testament. Which, along with the work of Stephanus and Beza were instrumental in the early modern translations of the Bible in the vernacular of Western Europe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SaintCody777]

That is not a flaw. Capitalising pronouns was a Victorian innovation. It is not always sure who the pronoun relates to. The NKJV incorrectly capitalises "He" in 2 Thessolonians 2:7 That is an interpretation and a false one at that.

I didn't mean this as a flaw, since the pronouns referring to God were introduced in the Victorian era. So, put it this way, capitalizing any pronoun that has got to do with God has made it a lot easier to know when He is speaking or what He is doing or has done. Its an improvement, besides the modernized spelling of the NKJV, which, like the KJV, uses the Byzantine type text for the NT.
And the captialized "He", in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 does refer to Jesus who restrains the church until the antichrist takes over for a while until the Lord puts him back down.

 

[Strong in Him]

not when they are missing much of God's words. 251 verses to be exact are completely missing from modern translations.

Maybe they aren't in the Greek, and the KJV added them for clarification.
Unless you compare the Greek/Hebrew, the KJV and the modern translations, we won't know. But of course that might show that the KJV has made a mistake.

The bible says in revelation if you take words from the Bible God will take away from your life out of the book of life, and if you add words to the Bible God will add curses to your life....

No, it says if you take words from this book, I.e the book of Revelation.
The Bible had not been compiled then - the word Bible is not in the Bible.

This is such a well known fact that bart ehrman criticizes inspiration saying some of the most well known bible verses were not in the original text.

It's also a well-known, and indisputable fact, that Revelation does not use the word Bible as you have just claimed.
If people want to assume that "this book" refers to a Bible that had not yet been compiled; that's up to them

And he was right partly, the existing manuscripts that we have that are older, were forged by vatican and these are missing over 200 verses.

So if the KJV has verses that appear in neither the older manuscripts nor the modern translations, what can we conclude from that? Where did they get these extra words from? Or are they words added for clarification and don't change anything important?

So apparently the founding fathers had access to an early KJV that is destroyed now.

?? The KJV was authorised by King James; it didn't exist before he came along. That's why I pointed out that Jesus and the disciples never had one - not even the OT.
I think you mean the the early fathers had access to an early manuscript, not an early KJV.

 

[robycop3]

what I am saying is you look into harry sturz works on it, which I posted earlier. The church fathers are quoting from the "missing verses." That is not a good sign for saying they were added.

With all due respect:

They could easily been added between the original writing & when the church fathers lived.

 

[createdtoworship]

False. Some translations don't have some verses or portions of verses that are found in the KJV; but the statement that they are "missing" is misleading. One could just as easily claim the KJV adds verses to the Bible and it would be equally as true.



No, it in fact doesn't say that. St. John in his Apocalypse writes a warning against anyone who would add or take away from the Apocalypse which he was writing. It is a reference about the Apocalypse alone.



Meaningless conspiracy theory.



Since the KJV didn't exist until it was published in 1611 it's pretty safe to say that, no, the ancient fathers didn't have access to an early KJV. What they did have were the various scrolls and codices, copies of the Scriptures; and which by their own admission did not always agree with one another at the time. What would later be called the Byzantine text-type developed, became the most common because of its continued use in the Byzantine period in the East. In the West, however, obviously it was the Vulgate that grew to prominence. It wasn't until the early modern period, in the 16th century, that western scholars grew more interested in the Greek text, which is--in part--what prompted the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam in his work, resulting in the five editions of his Greek New Testament. Which, along with the work of Stephanus and Beza were instrumental in the early modern translations of the Bible in the vernacular of Western Europe.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry I already replied to the allegation they were added in previous posts with the OP. Please reply to those posts about this.

 

[createdtoworship]

With all due respect:

They could easily been added between the original writing & when the church fathers lived.

Sure but now you have shot yourself in the foot because church fathers quotes of scripture are a way to back test that the current canon is true and complete. If you believe they had a compromised word of God prior to all the church counsels then all doctrine fails, the trinity, the diety of Christ, etc.

 

[David Kent]

Sure but now you have shot yourself in the foot because church fathers quotes of scripture are a way to back test that the current canon is true and complete. If you believe they had a compromised word of God prior to all the church counsels then all doctrine fails, the trinity, the diety of Christ, etc.

Exactly. A number of early writers quote the last verses of Mark.

 

[David Kent]

And the captialized "He", in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 does refer to Jesus who restrains the church until the antichrist takes over for a while until the Lord puts him back down.

That is an interpretation and not a good one. Remember that Paul told the Thessalonians that they knew what the restraint was, because he had told them. The early church writers told us what that was. The restraint was the Roman Empire.

 

[Der Alte]

... This is such a well known fact that bart ehrman criticizes inspiration saying some of the most well known bible verses were not in the original text. ...

Here is a quote from Bart Ehrman's own blog. You sure you want to quote him as an authority on the Bible?

Agnostic or Atheist?
I apparently threw a few people for a loop yesterday when I referred to myself as an atheist. Several readers responded, wanting to know if I had changed my views, since I have publicly stated that I am an agnostic.
I posted on this issue a while back – possibly a long while back – but since I don’t expect everyone to read everything I’ve ever written on this blog (!), I thought maybe I should explain my views again. So – apologies to those of you who have heard this before.
When I became an agnostic – 17 or 18 years ago? I’m not even sure any more – I thought that “agnosticism” and “atheism” were two *degrees* of basically the same thing. My sense is that this is what most people think. According to this idea, an agnostic is someone who says that s/he does not *know* whether God exists, and an atheist is someone who makes a definitive statement that God does *not* exist. Agnostics don’t know and atheists are sure.
Agnostic or Atheist? | The Bart Ehrman Blog​

 

[David Kent]

With all due respect:

They could easily been added between the original writing & when the church fathers lived.

Except that the so called early manuscripts are all dated after the fathers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sure but now you have shot yourself in the foot because church fathers quotes of scripture are a way to back test that the current canon is true and complete. If you believe they had a compromised word of God prior to all the church counsels then all doctrine fails, the trinity, the diety of Christ, etc.

If the disagreements among the fathers over the canonical status of certain books did not result in major theological disagreements, then the variability of the manuscripts with which they worked with certainly wouldn't. So, no, such a hypothesis does not cause injury to the creeds, councils, and the general orthodoxy of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry I already replied to the allegation they were added in previous posts with the OP. Please reply to those posts about this.

Your argument was that one can find references in the fathers to certain passages. Which is fine in some cases, but is an incomplete perspective. All that can be determined is that when a given father mentions something that they are speaking of the form of the text with which they are familiar at the time--it does not demonstrate that they are working with the earliest form of the text, nor does can it be inferred that all of the unique qualities of the Byzantine text type, let alone the the particulars of what would eventually be called the Textus Receptus were known by the fathers.

The period of the fathers, at least from the western perspective, covers nearly the entire first millennium; and likewise they cover vast geographical distances from Iona in Scotland to Mosul in Iraq.

What the fathers do provide us testimony of is the existence of text forms from their times, which is indeed very helpful in our study of the manuscripts and biblical paleography overall. But, again, it is not some kind of all-or-nothing affair. That's simply not an honest or responsible engagement with our sources.

Is it valuable when we see that e.g. Origen knows X variant reading and so that such reading was known in Origen's time? Yes. But it does not follow then that Origen is familiar with ALL variants. The classification of text-types is not monolithic, there are Byzantine texts with non-Byzantine readings, there are Alexandrian texts with non-Alexandrian readings, and there are all manner of variations within all text-types; and just because an ancient source knows of one variant reading does not itself sufficient for demonstrating anything much beyond that they are familiar with that particular variant reading.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

If the disagreements among the fathers over the canonical status of certain books did not result in major theological disagreements, then the variability of the manuscripts with which they worked with certainly wouldn't. So, no, such a hypothesis does not cause injury to the creeds, councils, and the general orthodoxy of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

So leaving a book out of the Bible is just dandy with you? I think one would have more faith in God's preserving hand on transmission.

 

[JSRG]

Since we're quoting Amazon reviews,

"There is essentially nothing in this entire book that is based on serious research. It promotes an impossible conspiracy theory. Ken McCrane has refuted this nonsense in his online essay "A Review of The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by D W Cooper." The basic theory proposed by Cooper is also addressed online by me, in a series of blog-posts. It is just plain ludicrous. However pious the author may be, not one bit of theory promoted in this book should be taken seriously."

And the review of the book from Ken McCrane? I don't know who Ken McCrane is or what his credentials are, but I found it, in case anyone is curious, and no haven't read it myself.: A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

In fact trying to find any information about this book, let alone a critique of it, has been met by a kind of deafening silence--in fact I continue to get results back to Christian Forums discussion threads. There's like nothing out there.

Which is odd. Almost like this isn't something being taken seriously in any academic circles anywhere or by anyone. Almost as though the idea that Sinaiticus is a hoax is a dumb conspiracy theory.

-CryptoLutheran

For those wishing to read them, the blog posts mentioned in the review seem to be these ones:
The Text of the Gospels: Sinaiticus Is Not a Forgery - Setting the Stage
The Text of the Gospels: Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides
The Text of the Gospels: Ten More Reasons Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides

 

[robycop3]

That is an interpretation and not a good one. Remember that Paul told the Thessalonians that they knew what the restraint was, because he had told them. The early church writers told us what that was. The restraint was the Roman Empire.

No, it wasn't. The beast/antichrist hasn't yet come.

 

[robycop3]

Except that the so called early manuscripts are all dated after the fathers.

No, not all.

 

[robycop3]

Sure but now you have shot yourself in the foot because church fathers quotes of scripture are a way to back test that the current canon is true and complete. If you believe they had a compromised word of God prior to all the church counsels then all doctrine fails, the trinity, the diety of Christ, etc.

Not at all. Some had portions of God's word. There were no complete Bibles in those days, but there was enough of God's word available to many so they could come to Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So leaving a book out of the Bible is just dandy with you? I think one would have more faith in God's preserving hand on transmission.

Do you accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran