Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?

[Bob Carabbio]

Please Bob, by all means, demonstrate.

Sure -

2 Sam 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

1 Chron 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadarezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

This is a demonstrable ERROR OF FACT. It's totally unimportant theologically, of course. (there are others, equally unimportant).

BUT-

"PERFECT THINGS" don't have "Errors".

Case closed.

 

[New Legacy]

“This is unfortunately a common situation in many Churches, were men from birth have been taught to suppress their agressive masculine traits, were they are told time and again women are better at everything, and were every commercial and TV sit com portrays them as stupid and uninvolved. Something happened in the 1800's were Churches became heavily feminized, and an emasculated form of Christianity became the norm in Protestant Churches as it had been long in Roman and Orthodox ones.”

Using different manuscripts emasculated that? Please, explain the logic of that.

… is that in the 1800's preachers allowed two heretics to give them a new Greek Text

Heretics? new? It wasn't new. It was older.

that was based on the Alexandrian type manuscripts, instead of the Majority text, which had been in use throughout the Byzantine area since the time of the Apostles, until that time. God has in deed preserved His Word throughout the years, in spite of what the so-called 'white coats' like to proclaim.

Jack

The Majority text is what is called Byzantine text type. It refers to all the various manuscripts that were used by the Greeks. The Textus Receptus was created by using where those texts agreed the plurality of the time.

The fact that it is newer suggests it may be less authentic to the earlier manuscripts.

 

[Jack Koons]

Please Bob, by all means, demonstrate.

Sure -

2 Sam 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

1 Chron 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadarezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

This is a demonstrable ERROR OF FACT. It's totally unimportant theologically, of course. (there are others, equally unimportant).

BUT-

"PERFECT THINGS" don't have "Errors".

Case closed.

While there are admittedly several views as to this apparent contradiction, (as can be seen in the following link), I believe the truth lies in the excerpt I will provide from the following link.

How many horsemen? - Another King James Bible Believer

“The solution to this apparent contradiction lies in 2 very insignificant words “unto Hamath” in 1 Chronicles 18:4. (In this presentation, no attempt will be made to explain where Hamath is, as it is not deemed necessary) In short, the account in 2 Samuel was probably a distinctly important battle while the account in 1 Chronicles was a summary of the long-drawn battle that took place between David and Hadadezer (Hadarezer). Note also the difference in the words used to describe the 2 accounts. In 2 Samuel, the battle that took place between David and Hadadezer (Hadarezer) was “as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates” and that in 1 Chronicles was “as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.”


“The battle in 2 Samuel was significant as it meant a strategic victory for David in capturing 700 horsemen from Hadadezer (Hadarezer). The place of the battle is not mentioned. However, we know from military conquests that there will always be pockets of resistance left that needs military mopping up. As horsemen are more mobile, it might have taken a longer period of time to quell all the resistance in the border of the Euphrates. However in the subsequent battles that ensued, the remaining 6300 horsemen were captured, bringing the total amount to 7000 only when David’s forces have reached unto Hamath. Or perhaps Hadadezer (Hadarezer) might have sent another reinforcement of 6300 horsemen which were also subsequently subdued. We do not know but any of the above are possible scenarios that God has chosen not to reveal.”


Here is the problem. My Bible tells me, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17


My Bible also tells me, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12: 6 & 7

Furthermore, according to the “London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith”, those men believed the following:

“8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )”

What all this means is that while some men spend all their time searching for so-called “contradictions” in the Bible, there are others who study the Bible so that they can understand what God actually gave to the writers of the Bible. While most scholars focus on the difference of the numbers, '700' and '7000' to prove a contradiction; there are others, like Brother Meng Kwang Han, look at the complete text and show that there is a very reasonable explanation for the difference in the numbers.

I will admit that while I believe the explanation given by Brother Meng Kwang Han is most probable, there is much merit in some of the other explanations as well. Either way, there is clear evidence that this is not a 'cut and dry' case that has been closed by your 'easily demonstrable' evidence.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Using different manuscripts emasculated that? Please, explain the logic of that.



Heretics? new? It wasn't new. It was older.



The Majority text is what is called Byzantine text type. It refers to all the various manuscripts that were used by the Greeks. The Textus Receptus was created by using where those texts agreed the plurality of the time.

The fact that it is newer suggests it may be less authentic to the earlier manuscripts.

Originally Posted by Jack Koons
“This is unfortunately a common situation in many Churches, were men from birth have been taught to suppress their agressive masculine traits, were they are told time and again women are better at everything, and were every commercial and TV sit com portrays them as stupid and uninvolved. Something happened in the 1800's were Churches became heavily feminized, and an emasculated form of Christianity became the norm in Protestant Churches as it had been long in Roman and Orthodox ones.”
Using different manuscripts emasculated that? Please, explain the logic of that.


Actually, (as can be seen in the original post) these are not my words; but I agree with them completely, and feel very comfortable giving an explanation as to their meaning. (If I am wrong, I give the author of these words [Cubanito] my full permission to correct anything I may get wrong.)

In today's churches, men (as is stated above) have in deed been taught to suppress their aggressive masculine traits. To give you an example of this; by the turn of the century (into the 1900's) the clergy began to shave off their beards to have a 'cleaner look'. What this actually was, was a more feminine look, a smoother look and feel. (More like a woman's face.) Also at the turn of the century, the carrying of 'side-irons' began to come to an end, because it was too aggressive, and there was no need for 'civilized men' to carry weapons. One small step, after one small step, the churches taught men to be less aggressive. Now you ask, “Using different manuscripts emasculated that? Please, explain the logic of that.” Prior to 1881, and the introduction of both the W/H Greek text, and the English Version of 1881, men, were taught, and practiced being men! The trend in the other direction started at the same time the church left the belief that the Bible they held in their hands was in fact, the inspired, inerrant, Word of God as they proclaimed in the London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The leader of this turn was Johann Salomo Semler (18 December 1725 – 14 March 1791) who was the first to deny the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. While it took another hundred years for this 'philosophy' of a 'non-inspirational' approach of textual criticism to have its affect on the teachings in the pew, it had a firm grip on the scholarship of many in the universities; which is evidenced by the acceptance of the new W/H Greek text. When you do not believe the 'original text' was Divinely inspired, the text no longer carries with it the authority of God. Then, just like in the Garden of Eden, many men listened to their wives for instruction, rather, than doing what God had commanded in His Word. If one cannot see the portrayals shown on TV, as stated by Cubanito, it is apparent that there is a real case of denial on one's part. My statement concerning the introduction of a different manuscript was to define the “Something” that Cubanito mentioned in his post.


“… is that in the 1800's preachers allowed two heretics to give them a new Greek Text
Heretics? new? It wasn't new. It was older.”

Heretics? Yes, heretics. If you take time to research what Westcott and Hort actually believed, you will find that on several occasions, they simply believed the Bible was in error. Not, the King James, the original text. Why? Because like Semler, they didn't believe in the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. That makes them heretics.

“new? It wasn't new. It was older.”

No, it was new. It may have been “based” on something they believed to be “older”, but their actual Greek Text was composed from 1853 until its completion in 1881, upon which time it was published.


“that was based on the Alexandrian type manuscripts, instead of the Majority text, which had been in use throughout the Byzantine area since the time of the Apostles, until that time. God has in deed preserved His Word throughout the years, in spite of what the so-called 'white coats' like to proclaim.

Jack
The Majority text is what is called Byzantine text type. It refers to all the various manuscripts that were used by the Greeks. The Textus Receptus was created by using where those texts agreed the plurality of the time.”


“The Majority text is what is called Byzantine text type.” That is correct.

“It refers to all the various manuscripts that were used by the Greeks.” That Sir, is a grave error. Because the Alexandrian text type Manuscripts are NOT part of the Majority Text. The Alexandrian text type manuscripts are their own type (or family of manuscripts). The Alexandrian manuscripts are only a very small percentage of the over 5300 Greek manuscripts.

“The Textus Receptus was created by using where those text agreed the plurality of the time.”

First, let me say that your statement has a couple of grammatical errors. Therefore, I will attempt to reword your statement, to make it grammatically correct.

'The Textus Receptus was created by using those manuscripts, where the text-type agreed the majority of the time, or at least had a plurality witness.'

The above statement is partially true, and partially false. When taken in the context of the original letter using the words “textus receptus”. In 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden published an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1633 they published a second edition. In the publisher's preface, in Latin, we find the following words: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum that can be translated as: the (reader) now has the text that is received by all. Therefore, the Textus Receptus is the accumulation of all Greek text of the Byzantine text type.


“The fact that it is newer suggests it may be less authentic to the earlier manuscripts.”


I believe that you are saying that the Byzantine text type is newer, therefore it may be less authentic to than (not “to”) the earlier manuscripts. Since you believe this, please consider the fact that the Peshitta, and the Old Italic, both agree with the Byzantine type texts, showing that the earliest manuscripts and Bibles bear witness to the Byzantine Greek, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus, as being authentic.

Jack

 

[standingtall]

 

[New Legacy]

Originally Posted by Jack Koons
Actually, (as can be seen in the original post) these are not my words; but I agree with them completely, and feel very comfortable giving an explanation as to their meaning. (If I am wrong, I give the author of these words [Cubanito] my full permission to correct anything I may get wrong.)

Please use quote boxes, not "

In today's churches, men (as is stated above) have in deed been taught to suppress their aggressive masculine traits. To give you an example of this; by the turn of the century (into the 1900's) the clergy began to shave off their beards to have a 'cleaner look'. What this actually was, was a more feminine look, a smoother look and feel. (More like a woman's face.) Also at the turn of the century, the carrying of 'side-irons' began to come to an end, because it was too aggressive, and there was no need for 'civilized men' to carry weapons. One small step, after one small step, the churches taught men to be less aggressive. Now you ask, “Using different manuscripts emasculated that? Please, explain the logic of that.” Prior to 1881, and the introduction of both the W/H Greek text, and the English Version of 1881, men, were taught, and practiced being men! The trend in the other direction started at the same time the church left the belief that the Bible they held in their hands was in fact, the inspired, inerrant, Word of God as they proclaimed in the London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The leader of this turn was Johann Salomo Semler (18 December 1725 – 14 March 1791) who was the first to deny the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. While it took another hundred years for this 'philosophy' of a 'non-inspirational' approach of textual criticism to have its affect on the teachings in the pew, it had a firm grip on the scholarship of many in the universities; which is evidenced by the acceptance of the new W/H Greek text. When you do not believe the 'original text' was Divinely inspired, the text no longer carries with it the authority of God. Then, just like in the Garden of Eden, many men listened to their wives for instruction, rather, than doing what God had commanded in His Word. If one cannot see the portrayals shown on TV, as stated by Cubanito, it is apparent that there is a real case of denial on one's part. My statement concerning the introduction of a different manuscript was to define the “Something” that Cubanito mentioned in his post.

I am not interested in the validity of this observation, I am very curious as to how this related to the use of earlier manuscripts?

Heretics? Yes, heretics. If you take time to research what Westcott and Hort actually believed, you will find that on several occasions, they simply believed the Bible was in error. Not, the King James, the original text. Why? Because like Semler, they didn't believe in the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. That makes them heretics.

Westcoot and Hort are not relevant here - the scriptures existed and were presented to scholars for study.

No, it was new. It may have been “based” on something they believed to be “older”, but their actual Greek Text was composed from 1853 until its completion in 1881, upon which time it was published.

No, those manuscripts are from what was discovered. The TR was created by splicing various later Byzantine manuscripts together.

“The Majority text is what is called Byzantine text type.” That is correct.

“It refers to all the various manuscripts that were used by the Greeks.” That Sir, is a grave error. Because the Alexandrian text type Manuscripts are NOT part of the Majority Text. The Alexandrian text type manuscripts are their own type (or family of manuscripts). The Alexandrian manuscripts are only a very small percentage of the over 5300 Greek manuscripts.

Alexandrian manuscripts are Coptic, not Greek. You also ignored the fact that the majority texts (all the manuscripts) disagreed with each other in certain areas. Thus, the need for the TR. The TR was based on what all those manuscripts available to Erasmus said that most.

First, let me say that your statement has a couple of grammatical errors. Therefore, I will attempt to reword your statement, to make it grammatically correct.

'The Textus Receptus was created by using those manuscripts, where the text-type agreed the majority of the time, or at least had a plurality witness.'

The above statement is partially true, and partially false. When taken in the context of the original letter using the words “textus receptus”. In 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden published an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1633 they published a second edition. In the publisher's preface, in Latin, we find the following words: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum that can be translated as: the (reader) now has the text that is received by all. Therefore, the Textus Receptus is the accumulation of all Greek text of the Byzantine text type.

It is based on taking all the manuscripts which disagreed with each other in certain parts and incorporating into a single text what was said the most. Thus, the KJV is not taken from a single preserved text. It is a translation of what was said the most among the manuscripts.

I believe that you are saying that the Byzantine text type is newer, therefore it may be less authentic to than (not “to”) the earlier manuscripts. Since you believe this, please consider the fact that the Peshitta, and the Old Italic, both agree with the Byzantine type texts, showing that the earliest manuscripts and Bibles bear witness to the Byzantine Greek, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus, as being authentic.

Jack

The Majority Text refers to all the Byzantine texts. Textus Receptus refers to taking bits from the various manuscripts and incorporating what the manuscripts said the most.

Thus, the TR was created by man. It was no based on any single source. It does not agree with any particular manuscript.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

What if the Majority Text and the Byzantine texts are actually from older sources than previously thought? I have heard from a bishop in the Anglican Orthodox Church that the orginal manuscripts were used until they became very worn and fragile, then they were carefully copied and the old one was burned. This was said to have went on for a long time. So I guess it is possible that the Majority Text and the Byzantine texts could be much older and perhaps the oldest if you use this line of thinking. Has anyone ever heard anything like this before?

 

[Jack Koons]

I would appreciate if someone told me how to use "quote boxes".

 

[Jack Koons]

What if the Majority Text and the Byzantine texts are actually from older sources than previously thought? I have heard from a bishop in the Anglican Orthodox Church that the orginal manuscripts were used until they became very worn and fragile, then they were carefully copied and the old one was burned. This was said to have went on for a long time. So I guess it is possible that the Majority Text and the Byzantine texts could be much older and perhaps the oldest if you use this line of thinking. Has anyone ever heard anything like this before?

This is actually the textual critics worst nightmare. I am trying to locate an article i read lately, (I have so many articles, I must soon take some time off everything until I get them organized.) on how there are more manuscripts being found which contain Byzantine type 'readings'. While the manuscripts may not be entirely Byzantine, the manuscripts being found, are containing Byzantine readings. This could develop into some very interesting changes in manuscript witnesses.

Jack

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Just as expected, a collection of Desperate rationalizations, and cites of "Expert opinions" to try to make an OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION in a supposedly PERFECT "Word of God" go away.

The Samuel/Kings vs Chronicles mismatches can provide others - but I won't belabor the point. I already know most of the "Rationalizations".

But my favorite Example is: "Who was King Abijah's Mother". (2 Chr 11:20/13:2)

Answer: "Who cares" but a contradiction of fact remains.

 

[Jack Koons]

Just as expected, a collection of Desperate rationalizations, and cites of "Expert opinions" to try to make an OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION in a supposedly PERFECT "Word of God" go away.

The Samuel/Kings vs Chronicles mismatches can provide others - but I won't belabor the point. I already know most of the "Rationalizations".

But my favorite Example is: "Who was King Abijah's Mother". (2 Chr 11:20/13:2)

Answer: "Who cares" but a contradiction of fact remains.

Bob,

I always try to maintain professionalism here in this forum, and I will do no less now. I will however at times, make statement to those who, in my humble opinion, are quick to speak, without having adequately studied the subject being discussed. These so-called 'rationalisms' which you refer to are not, desperate measures of hope to cling to a false belief in a “perfect Bible”; rather they are the work of men who have spent many hours (and years) of research and study in the Word of God, because they know that despite the opinion of men, God has kept His Word to preserve it (His Word) perfectly.

One thing I have learned about truth Bob; truth does not depend on the belief of men to be factual, truth is truth, whether you believe it, or whether you don't! And Bob, Since God promised in Psalm 12:6 & 7 to preserve His word, and keep them pure, it really matters not whether you believe Him or not. God's words are still God's words!

And since I'm in a generous mood, I'll address (or at least I'll have another source address) the matter of “Who was King Abijah's Mother?”.

Who was the mother of Abijam (Abijah)? - BibelCenter [apparent] contradictions

The following excerpt was taken from the above site by Wolfgang Schneider:

“This apparent contradiction about the references to the mother of Abijam or Abijah rests essentially on a lack of understanding and overview of the families mentioned and their genealogies. Furthermore, the same person is called by different names. We already see that Abijam and Abijah are two slightly different names are used for the same person, i.e. for the king who began to reign in Jerusalem.
In 1 Kings 15 Abijam's mother is called "Maacha", which means "suppression"; in 2 Chronicles however, she is called "Michaiah", which means "Who is like Jehovah?". Michaiah is the name which is used for her as the queen mother, Maacha is the name which is used in connection with her idolatry (cp. 2 Chronicles 15:16).
Abijam's (Abijah's) mother is once called the "daughter of Abishalom" and once the "daughter of Uriel of Gibeah". According to Josephus (Ant. VIII,10.1), this Uriel was the husband of Abishalom's daughter Tamar, and Tamar then was the mother of Maacha. Maacha was therefore not literally the real "mother" of Abijam, but rather the word "mother" is used by means of the figure of speech Synecdoche (of species) for a female ancestor. She was in reality the grandmother of Abijam, but she is mentioned here in the record about the beginning of Abijam's reign because of her position and her influence at the royal court.”

Now Bob, I know that you are probably going to tell me that I once again have 'rationalized' away an actual contradiction; while the truth of the matter is rather simple. When one studies the Word of God to be taught by the Author, one submits to the power and wisdom of the same. It doesn't take a graduate student in Biblical Studies to know that it is a common practice for God to refer to the same person using different names. For example, when referring to Jacob, (after His same was changed to Israel), God would refer to him as both Jacob, and Israel, depending on the context of event. Sometimes, it was a matter of a simple difference in the spelling of the name. Jonas vs. Jonah, or Isaiah vs. Esaias. Bob, you should really take time follow the instructions in the Word of God before assuming to correct the same.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

New Legacy

Please use quote boxes, not "



I am not interested in the validity of this observation, I am very curious as to how this related to the use of earlier manuscripts?

The manuscripts and Bibles used throughout the Byzantine empire were those that had been used by churches from the time of Christ until the time of the reformation.

Westcoot and Hort are not relevant here - the scriptures existed and were presented to scholars for study.

Westcott and Hort are very relevant, they stated that the Byzantine text type were corrupted, and therefore, they felt obligated to make a new Greek Text.

No, those manuscripts are from what was discovered.

I would like you to define "those manuscripts are from what was discovered."

You must understand that there is NO Greek manuscript that is complete from Matthew 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; therefore, Westcott and Hort spliced together the manuscripts they had. (With a bit of their own interjections of course.)

The TR was created by splicing various later Byzantine manuscripts together.

The TR was created by carefully collating the multiple Byzantine text-type MSS, along with Vulgar, and Syriac texts that existed as early as 120 AD, which would have been authenticated by the church fathers which were contemporary with the Apostles.

Alexandrian manuscripts are Coptic, not Greek.

You really need to do some research before posting.

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

"The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century in uncial letters on parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament,[3] along with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Constantin von Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled.[4]"

You also ignored the fact that the majority texts (all the manuscripts) disagreed with each other in certain areas.

I would like to point out to you that the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus are very different from each other.

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

"Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two of great uncial codices, representatives of the Alexandrian text-type, are considered excellent manuscript witnesses of the text of the New Testament. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament give precedence to these two chief uncial manuscripts, and the majority of translations are based on their text. Nevertheless, there are many differences between these two manuscripts. According to Dean Burgon: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."[1]
According to Herman C. Hoskier,[2] there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022
[1] Dean John W. Burgon,Revision Revised (1883), p. 12
[2] Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, Bernard Quaritch, London 1914.”

Thus, the need for the TR. The TR was based on what all those manuscripts available to Erasmus said that most.


It is based on taking all the manuscripts which disagreed with each other in certain parts and incorporating into a single text what was said the most. Thus, the KJV is not taken from a single preserved text. It is a translation of what was said the most among the manuscripts.

Please give me the name of the manuscript that Westcott and Hort used to make their Greek text.

The Majority Text refers to all the Byzantine texts. Textus Receptus refers to taking bits from the various manuscripts and incorporating what the manuscripts said the most.

Thus, the TR was created by man. It was no based on any single source. It does not agree with any particular manuscript.

You obviously haven't done your homework, or you would never make such statements. Here are some facts for you to consider:

Dr. Waite gives the following statistics:
1) 99% of MSS underly the KJV
2) 85% of the Papyrus Fragments support the KJV
3) 97% of the Uncials support the KJV
4) 99% of the Cursives support the KJV
5) 100% of the Lectionaries support the KJV

Let's do the math.

99 + 85 + 97 + 99 + 100 = 480. 480 / 5 = 96. That means that 96% of all MSS (and Lectionaries) combined, support the KJV. Now if, by your definition 96% of all evidence supporting the King James is, “ … taking bits from the various manuscripts and incorporating what the manuscripts said the most”; well, I guess that is okay, but they were obviously very large pieces.

Jack

 

[cubanito]

96% is not 100%, kind of proves the point that the Biblical text has NOT been kept 100% pure, as Jesus Christ implied it would not be: "...not one iota...UNTIL all is fulfilled" as I posted earlier.

When an excellent modern equivalence translation, like my favorite the NASB, finds significant discrepancies, it usually footnotes it and allows the reader to decide.

This is one reason why I believe the KJV, still a good translation, is no longer the best.

Unfortunately, I do not posess the training, nor wish to invest the time, to learn intricacies of textual criticism.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

96% is not 100%, kind of proves the point that the Biblical text has NOT been kept 100% pure, as Jesus Christ implied it would not be: "...not one iota...UNTIL all is fulfilled" as I posted earlier.

JR,

You are correct; 96% is not 100%. However, I was not trying to say that every MSS is of the Byzantine Text type, we all know that isn't true. That however, does not prove that the Biblical text has NOT been kept 100% pure. Allow me to explain.

Let us imagine that I write you a letter. When I mail you the letter, the letter arrives in your mailbox. Your neighbor, being nosy, opens the letter, reads it, and then decides that I should have worded things differently. Your neighbor then writes another version of my letter, signs it, and then accidentally puts both letters in the envelope, and puts it back in your mailbox. Now then, since you have two letters, (that have different wording) both supposedly from the same person, are they both the wrong wording?

JR, God did not eliminate the false copies, He preserved the real ones throughout the Byzantine Empire, making thousands of copies wherein His words have been preserved. At the same time, the neighbors (Gnostics, Arians, and others) decided they would change the wording of Scripture. The MSS they made, make up the other 4% of the total of the MSS. In your mailbox, you had a 50% chance of picking the right letter. With God's Word, you have a 96% of picking the right letters. How do we choose the right one. Here is an illustration I took from Textual Critics, (I just wish they did what they say they would do.)

Reliability of the New Testament Text

“Reproducing the Original Text
Although there is such an abundance of copies, we do not possess the orginal "autographs" of the NT manuscripts (though it is likely that we do have a couple of little pieces). --So, how do we accurately come up with the text? We do it by employing "Textual Criticism" : a branch of document study, which considers all the manuscripts available and works toward reproducing the words of the original documents as exactly as possible. When textual critics work toward reproducing the original text, the general criteria are : the older copies, which were more likely to be more directly from the originals, take priority and are preferred over more recent documents; copies (and sections of copies) which exhibit no deviation (or the lowest deviation) from the majority of the better texts, take priority over those which exhibit more deviation.
The "Codex Vaticanus" is considered to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript now in existence, which apparently comes from the year 325 AD. "Codex Sinaiticus" comes from about 350 AD, but it contains all of the New Testament. (These two manuscripts come from the "Alexandrian" text-type, which is the oldest and most consistent.) When these two old manuscripts agree word-for-word (especially when they're also verified by several other of the oldest and best papyrus copies), there is virtually no doubt that the correct wording of the original text has been reached.
This process of deducing the wording of the original text would be analogous to the following situation : ----- If the US Bureau of Standards had one (and only one) "yard-stick," made out of metal, which was the national standard of exactly one yard in length, but it was lost -----could we look at the lengths of yard-sticks across the country (copies of the standard) to reproduce another national-standard yard-stick which would be 99.9% accurate in length? Yes, we could, with a high degree of assurance, because we would consider wooden copies from paint-stores to be least reliable, moving right on up to metal copies in machine-shops as being probably be the most reliable and free from error. The better copies that all agree with one another would take priority over those with a slight degree of deviation in them. Copies with a higher amount of deviation from the vast majority, would be disregarded. ----In this way, we would assuredly be able to come up with a reproduction of the original standard that would be 99.99% accurate.”
Just for the record, immediately following the above excerpt, the same article stated:

“Textual Criticism of ancient copies is employed fairly much the same way, with the result that the Greek text of the NT which we have today is most assuredly almost an exact copy of the original NT manuscripts. Norman Geisler and William Nix remark that "Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt." ( General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler & Nix, Chicago: Moody, 1968, p.367).”

Then there is a box which states, “(Therefore, NOTE: Of those "40 lines" which are even a little bit in question, 75% of those questionable lines come to about 300 words found in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark 16. --So, if we leave Mark 16:9-20 out of our Bible-reading, very little is left in question at all. The remainder is about 99.8% accurate... and we know exactly which 100 words are in any question.”

You see, JR, the 96% is not the MSS you throw away, (as the Textual Critics have done), they are the ones you keep. The 96% is not the accuracy of the MSS, it is the number of MSS that agree with each other. Yes, JR, there are corrupt MSS, but there are also uncorrupted MSS. In a multiple choice test, “multiple choice” doesn't mean they are all 'wrong', it means you must study to know the correct answer.

When an excellent modern equivalence translation, like my favorite the NASB, finds significant discrepancies, it usually footnotes it and allows the reader to decide.

I just posted a photo I took of a footnote in the NIV concerning 1 John 5:7. The information in the footnote was absolutely false. My question to you is quite simple: Since 99% of all laypeople have no understanding of MSS evidence, and or textual criticism, what gives them (the laypeople) a fighting chance of making the right decision based on falsified footnotes? Until I posted the information I did concerning 1 John 5:7; you thought, the case against it was simply cut and dried. I know that you do not think that my use of the Latin was a smart move, but that wasn't the only evidence that I gave that modern scholarship says, does not exist. Do you really think laypeople who have little understanding of these things have any chance of making the correct choice based on such information?

This is one reason why I believe the KJV, still a good translation, is no longer the best.

Unfortunately, I do not posess the training, nor wish to invest the time, to learn intricacies of textual criticism.

JR

I must agree with Dr. Waite on this issue. In his debate with Dr. White (which was posted in the thread for 1 John 5:7), Dr. Waite stated that it was his opinion that giving (the average) reader variant readings only causes the reader to be confused.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Just as expected, a collection of Desperate rationalizations, and cites of "Expert opinions" to try to make an OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION in a supposedly PERFECT "Word of God" go away.

The Samuel/Kings vs Chronicles mismatches can provide others - but I won't belabor the point. I already know most of the "Rationalizations".

But my favorite Example is: "Who was King Abijah's Mother". (2 Chr 11:20/13:2)

Answer: "Who cares" but a contradiction of fact remains.

Now if you want to read some 'real' "Desperate Rationalizations", I would invite you to read this article by Doug Kutilek. What makes it so interesting, is that he turns this, "... , being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all …"; into this, "... and by his singular care and providence kept pure ... are therefore authentical; so as in all ... being immediately inspired by God, and by his ...".

Talk about desperate!

Why did he replace "in all ages", with "..."? While using a proper technique of 'quoting', he, in his normal fashion, uses a type of presentation that is not straight forward and factual.


Jack

 

[cubanito]

Jack please allow me a tiny little ad hominem: you of all people worried about confusing a layman? Oh Jack, please tell me you're blushing!

OK, I had to get that out of my system.

I- Please stop beating up on straw men. I intensely dislike the NIV. Find me a factual NASB error that does not involve some dubious conspiracy theory about Logwhatever and I'll listen. The NIV is NOT a translation as far as I am concerned, it is a paraphrase and the "scholars" can take their "dynamic equivalence" and you know what (pardon me, I spent a part of my childhood homeless in Manhattan so I am not a "polite" man at times). Besides the history of Zondervan and the NIV is downright disgusting. So finding a factual error in the NIV is to me beating a straw man.

II- Footnotes are the perfect way NOT to confuse the layman. They allow for uninterrupted reading of the text with a place for that layman who wishes to pursue something further a warning that there is a little quirk in something. I do agree that most laymen will never care one whit about textual criticism, and I have admitted I do not plan on pursuing this field to you. Yet on occasion some particular verse is crucial enough for me to use eSword, get out my old Greek Synonyms book and spend some time. In the oooooooold days it was my exhaustive NASB concordance with strong numbers and a bunch of books until my wife screamed about the mess I was making on the dining room table, or some nurse decided to call me to keep somebody from dying in a Hospital. Whatever, the point is footnotes are a GREAT way to warn the layman something more is here without confusing them if they simply want the zeitgeist (gist) of the matter.

III- There are 3 kinds of truth.
A- Absolute Truths, something the average "educated" westerner thinks does not exist, and are wrong. 1+1+1=1 in finite math, 1+1=10 in binary math and so on. There are other Truths, as like expressed in the Nicene Creed which are unassailable and since we both believe that there is no point in belaboring this.
B- Relative truths whose probability of being wrong is so minute as to be operationally identical to Absolute. For example, the probability of ANY functioning set of protein s arising from a "prebiotic soup" is such a truth. While it gets a bit technical, which is why I did not post it in the evolution thread, here is a quote from "Signature in the Cell":
Since the simplest living cell requires at least 250 different proteins, the chances of forming the necessary proteins by chance alone is 1:1041,000!
But wait, you say, given enough time, couldn’t the odds be met? No. Given a liberal estimate, there have only been 10139 events in the entire universe since the Big Bang. So even if every event in the history of the universe was devoted to building a single functional protein, the number of sequences produced thus far would be less than 1 out of a trillion trillion of the total number of events needed to give it even a 50% chance of success! And that’s just one protein! The other 249 would still need to be accounted for. Anyone who believes chance can succeed with these odds is being irrational.
Now to make even the simplest living organism, you also require precise sugars, lipids, and a whole bunch of other stuff which, by the way, tends to randomly react with each other in a destructive fashion. Thus even the most conservative estimate of the simplest life form arising has recently been estimated by EVOLUTIONISTS as less than 1 in 10 raised to a googolplex. To get around this they now talk about an infinite number of multiverses where, oh what luck, we just happen to be in one that produced life. Oh gee, like not the one where the tooth fairy stole the Easter bunnies' left upper incisor? Oh Jack please, if Christians had a tenth the faith of atheist scientists we'd make the Great Awakening look like a grade school slumber party. As an agnostic I could not force myself to believe the modern creation mythology; but I digress.
C- Relative truths that are still iffy. Now we can have different cut offs here between B and C. For me 99.8% is still in C and maybe for you it's in B. And I suppose you can win the argument by saying that rounding off even 65% is 100% but that would be a cheap victory. I think I know that by 100% you mean certain, and for me 99.8% is still not certain. If it were Mercury's orbit might still be explained by Newtonian physics instead of requiring Einsteinian relativity. So let's talk about your letter analogy.
1- It is not that your neighbor put one, or hundreds, of altered copies in with the original. It is that the original is gone, totally gone except for MAYBE some teeny tiny fragment of the Gospel of John, maybe. While your analogy is clear, it is faulty (I am thankful that I can at least follow your explanation this time). What we have in our "mailbox" is many, many hundreds of pieces of copies, which vary in agreement from 100% in places to less so in others. That in my brain means we are in category C, relative truth.
2- It is AMAZING and there is nothing even close to how much agreement there is among these ancient copies. Truly I see "Extraordinary Providence" like a flashing neon light in the darkness when compared to, on the one hand the HYPOCRISY and lies of Islam who try to ascribe Absolute perfection to the unholy Koran (google "Satanic verses" when in fact conformity was enforced by the sword. On the other hand the much less certainty for any other ancient work. Even the so much more recent works of Shakespeare have more uncertainty by far! To me this places the Bible in an unique category: real history, with all it's messy complications (as opposed to Islamic or Hindu lies) and yet beyond question in a class by itself. So please, when you engage me in conversation, do not bring up men like Seimer, Kant or the "translators" of the NIV. Deal with men who subscribe to the Chicago Statement on the Fundamentals. Perhaps these men and that statement is still too liberal for you, but it is to those men whom I put my trust to do the work of textual criticism that I do not.
3- I have stated several objections that you have not addressed. I have made a case that JC predicted that the OT Scripture will NOT remain absolutely precise to the letter. I have backed that up by asking "who killed Goliath?" and pointing out inconsistencies in numbers of chariots in Judges and other ERRORS in the OT manuscript. These remain unanswered. You did a good job on the name of the mother of I-forget-who. But there are still errors you are not facing. Tiny, teeny, weeny errors, but errors nonetheless,

There, I have done my tripartite best. I need to go make some money by deciding who lives or dies Jack, so I thank you for putting me in a good mood by destroying your arguments; and a few geezers that I might just keep alive today, if they are nice enough to me thank you also.
JR, the real legend in his own mind

 

[Jack Koons]

JR,

Let us do this one piece at a time:

Jack please allow me a tiny little ad hominem: you of all people worried about confusing a layman? Oh Jack, please tell me you're blushing!

OK, I had to get that out of my system.

I- Please stop beating up on straw men. I intensely dislike the NIV. Find me a factual NASB error that does not involve some dubious conspiracy theory about Logwhatever and I'll listen. The NIV is NOT a translation as far as I am concerned, it is a paraphrase and the "scholars" can take their "dynamic equivalence" and you know what (pardon me, I spent a part of my childhood homeless in Manhattan so I am not a "polite" man at times). Besides the history of Zondervan and the NIV is downright disgusting. So finding a factual error in the NIV is to me beating a straw man.

JR, since the NIV is the number one selling Bible, Top Bible Translations Remain NIV, KJV and NKJV discussing it may be beating up a straw man to you; but is is obviously not for others.

Moving on:

Find me a factual NASB error that does not involve some dubious conspiracy theory about Logwhatever and I'll listen.

For lack of space, I'll just give three in each of two categories:

NASB Contradictions: These contradictions are shown in the NASB, this is to show that these contradictions are not caused by their comparison to the KJV, but rather these contradictions, that are also doctrinally wrong, are a product of the NASB.

1) Gen 12:7 and Gal 3:16 (descendants vs. seed) Galatians 3:16 is a reference to Genesis 12:7
Note: Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. Gen. 12:7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your [a]descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him. Note: The footnote reads, “Lit seed”. The interesting thing is, the KJV actually has “seed” in the text. I wonder why?
2) 2 Sam 14:14 The KJV reads, “neither both God respect any person”; while the NASB reads, “yet God does not take away life”. Really? Maybe they forgot about
2 Sam 12:15 So Nathan went to his house.
Loss of a Child
Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s [a]widow bore to David, so that he was verysick.
The footnote reads, “Lit wife”. The KJV reads, “wife” in the text. I wonder why?
Deut. 32:39 ‘See now that I, I am He,
And there is no god besides Me;
It is I who put to death and give life.
I have wounded and it is I who heal,
And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.”
Gen. 38: 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord took his life. & 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.
1 Sam. 2:6 “The Lord kills and makes alive;
He brings down to [a]Sheol and raises up.
2 Sam. 6:7; And the anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for[a]his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.
3) 1 John 5:19 In the KJV it reads, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness”. In the NASB it reads, “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one”. “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one”, Really? What about:

Eph. 1:11 [a]also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
Dan. 4:17 “This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers
And the decision is a command of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind,
And bestows it on whom He wishes
And sets over it the lowliest of men.”
25 “that you be driven away from mankind and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven [a]periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that theMost High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.”
26 “And in that it was commanded to leave the stump [a]with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules.”


NASB Doctrinal Problems:

1) Luke 2:22 is a reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 and the purification of women after childbirth.
2) Psalm 78:36 “deceived” God; Really? I wasn't aware that anyone could deceive God. (Isn't God omnipotent? Doesn't that mean it is (or would be) impossible to “deceive” Him?
3) 2 Peter 3:12 The difference between “Looking for and hastening unto”, and “Looking for and hastening” is, that the former is simply waiting with anticipation, while the latter is actually having we as people 'speeding up' God's 'timetable'.

II- Footnotes are the perfect way NOT to confuse the layman. They allow for uninterrupted reading of the text with a place for that layman who wishes to pursue something further a warning that there is a little quirk in something. I do agree that most laymen will never care one whit about textual criticism, and I have admitted I do not plan on pursuing this field to you. Yet on occasion some particular verse is crucial enough for me to use eSword, get out my old Greek Synonyms book and spend some time. In the oooooooold days it was my exhaustive NASB concordance with strong numbers and a bunch of books until my wife screamed about the mess I was making on the dining room table, or some nurse decided to call me to keep somebody from dying in a Hospital. Whatever, the point is footnotes are a GREAT way to warn the layman something more is here without confusing them if they simply want the zeitgeist (gist) of the matter.

JR, I am not in disagreement with you in the use of footnotes in and of themselves. (I do a considerable amount of writing, and use them frequently.) However, I do my best not to lie to people in footnotes. I use footnotes to reference supportive material for that which is written in the text. Many of the footnotes found in Bibles are outright lies, as indicated by my latest post in the thread concerning 1 John 5:7.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

I would like the readers of this thread to notice a simple fact. Each time one of my opponents believes a point can be brought out to defeat the inerrancy of the King James Bible, I deal with it in a professional matter with documentation. When the point given against the King James is proven false; rather than admit to the superiority of the King James, my opponents attack the character of those men who brought us the scriptures. (Erasmus and/or the King James translators)

In Post # 156 I was specifically asked to show a "factual NASB error"; in Post # 157, I gave several. I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, my opponents would be gathering together in one accord, demanding an explanation for any error. Notice, the fact that my request has been completely ignored.

If I can afford the time, I may chronicle in detail where the King James Bible came from. While there are many works available which generally deal with this issue, few deal specifically with the KJV in detail.

Jack