King james bible only

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't believe you know what you are talking about Shiloh.  I just believe you read articles that back up your position, and repeat them.  Last night, I responded to your post about the manuscripts found in caves, and sat there over an hour with you waiting on what I figured would be a simple thing for you to answer.  You finally came up with something this morning.  Had you had such great understanding, you could have given me an immediate response. 

I know you were there, as your name was there along side me and a handful of others.  You made a mistake.  You said something that harmed your argument, and it took you time to re-group because you can't admit you were wrong.

LOL, not true.  The boards update information slowly.  I can be signed off, but it will still show me as sitting in a thread.  It takes almost 45 minutes for a person's name to disappear off the board when they sign off. In some cases, I can read a thread and move on to another the thread and still show as sitting on the previous thread.  it's weird.  I usually read a response and then move on and let the response marinate for a while in my mind.   I have found that to be better than feeling like I need to respond immediately.  I have found when I respond immediately, I end up responding to what I think someone is saying and not what they actually said.  So I read the response and let it sink in and then respond later.

 

My understanding of these things stems from taking the time to learn and yes I read books.  Where else would I learn?  Reading books and articles is part of the learning process.  You don't seem to have a problem regurgitating what you have read in someone else's book, but suddenly when I recount what I have learned in my reading and study it means I don't know anything?   Perhaps you need to examine your double standard.

 

They have manuscripts that contain more or less than others.  You still have yet to explain what exactly makes one manuscript "more reliable" than another.  You can't, because the translators haven't.  You can't just do a quick Google search to get an answer that makes you appear to be an expert.  All that is going on here is Satan has found a way to destroy the credibility of scripture.  He has convinced everyone that the Bible is less than 100 percent reliable.  Anyone that accepts dozens of translations as ok has to believe that since they don't all say the exact same thing.  He has succeeded in convincing people it is ok to remove part of the text on simple faith that the translators know best when it comes to deciding which are the most reliable manuscripts.  Never mind they don't give us the standard for that comment.

They know what is more reliable based on the tens of thousands of comparisons.  This especially true in the Greek authors who cite the NT early in the late 1st century and into the 2nd centuries. Those people couldn't quote from texts that weren't there.  They had no incentive to hide anything. 

 

 

I have also learned something else from you.  I will give you credit for being a very good debater.  I have watched closely how you work.  I will respond to something you say, and you will only post a sliver of what I said, and leave out anything that harms your case.  You will just act like it was never said.  Then it gets lost along the way.  I am still marveling at how you came up with that comment about the TR.  I see what you have done.  You can rightly say that the TR as we know it didn't exist until the 1600s, but that is irrelevant when you take into account the actual text did. 

 

No, it didn't exist.   The TR finds it Genesis in Erasmus' copy of the Greek NT.   That text was revised several times until it arrived at the TR that we have now.  That means that the TR revision used to translate the KJV actually had to be corrected and updated.  Meaning that the KJV was translated from a less than perfect copy of the Greek NT. 

 

 

All it is that didn't exist was the compilation that was given the name Textus Receptus.  That is no different than someone pointing out that the canon didn't exist at the time of the early Church.  That comment makes it appear that someone just wrote it years later, but they didn't.  The compilation and acceptance that 66 books make up God's Word hadn't been established and placed in one volume, but the manuscripts were known and in use.  The early church did have the TR, but it wasn't called the TR. 

 

False.  The early church didn't have the TR.  The Greek NT text did exist, but the TR isn't based on those early Greek texts at all.  So your comparison with the formation of the canon is an invalid comparison.  That canon did exist and was known but was not officially recognized until the fourth century.

 

The TR is a revision of a specific copy of the Greek NT that was created in the 1500s.  It was not a document handed down through successive generations from ancient times.

 

 

They had the manuscripts that would be compiled into the TR.  All the TR is would be a compilation of the accepted manuscripts that were used all along, and those other thousands of manuscripts were not the ones being used all along.  In that way, the TR is traced to the early church, but not as the TR, so on a technicality, you are telling the truth, but it really isn't truth at all.  It is no more truthful than for me to claim that the Bible was first written when the canon was put together.  Yes, the volume as we know it was put into the form we see today when that occurred, but the text was much older.  You guys are good, but I am on to you.

 

The TR was a compilation of manuscripts but they were not necessarily ancient  because many of these ancient Greek NT manuscripts are modern discoveries, that Erasmus and the KJV translators didn't have access to.

 

The version of the TR that did exist in 1611 isn't the only Greek text that the KJV translators worked from. They created the KJV translations from a number of different Greek texts that they did have at their disposal AND they also consulted previous English translations as well. 

 

The notion that the KJV is translated only from the TR is simply not historically accurate.

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

The TR at the very earliest only goes back to the 16th century AD.  The TR is based on older Greek manuscripts and finds it beginning the Greek manuscript by Erasmus in 1516 and the TR as we know it today didn't exist until 1633.   There are some 5,000 Greek copies of the NT that date back as far as early 2nd century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are not talking about the TR as we know it.  All that means is the compilation of manuscripts known as the TR didn't exist until 1633, not the actual text.  We didn't have a complete Bible as we know it at one time either.  We didn't have the modern translations as we know it till the 20th century, so using that argument, since the KJV is older, it is more reliable.  What has basically happened is you have modern translators deciding to use their personal choice of manuscripts and they are calling them the most reliable based on nothing. 

 

 

If age is the factor to show reliability of a translation, the KJV loses. Before KJV, you have the Wycliff English translation from the 1380's. Tyndale published the NT in English around 1526's. Coverdale used the Tyndale NT translation, and translated the OT into English, printing the complete English bible in 1535. In 1539, Coverdale was hired by the Archbishop of Canterbury to publish the 'Great Bible' also known as the Cranmer bible for authorized public use between 1539 and 1541.

 

That's not the point.  Shiloh is claiming that age is the factor in which manuscripts people are translating from.  He is claiming there are older manuscripts than those known as the TR, and that makes them better.  I am saying that if we use that argument, then it stands to reason the KJV Bible is better than the new translations.  Thanks for helping me make that point.  Age is not always the deciding factor.  If it is, your modern translations are the biggest losers, because all that went before them is superior. 

 

 

Age is generally better in manuscripts but age is not necessarily a factor in translations.

 

A translation is only as good as the skill and knowledge of the translators, as well as the source(s) used to translate from. So, other the skill, the next important factor is the source.

 

Greek and Hebrew bibles come from manuscripts which are hand written fragments or larger sections. Being hand written, the accuracy of the copy is important. A hand written copy, even by a professional scribe, likely has a couple of scribal errors. A copy of a copy would incorporate the scribal errors of the one being used to copy, and the scribe of the new copy of a copy, is likely to make an error or two. So, in hand copies, the instances of errors can increase the further the copy is from the original. Plus, a hand copy which is not made by a scribe, can contain a persons comments, which could then erroneously be included in the next copy of it. Age does matter when using manuscripts. Ideally, you want one done by a professional scribe, closer in time to the original. The quality of a manuscript is a judgement call, comparing it to other known manuscripts, or even manuscripts written in different languages translated from a now non-existent manuscript, to find variations due to scribal error or accidental inserts or missing text. (when copying a set of lines, sometimes a line can be accidently missed. It is something which our eyes can do).  So, age does make a difference in manuscripts but not in translations.

[Persuaded]

I've only done a little digging in this area, but what I think I know is...

 

Westcott and Hort were the chief proponents of the various "critical texts", which were from the Alexandrian type. Because of their writings, it is now difficult to be taken seriously as a Bible scholar unless you use the critical texts. These texts are fewer in number than the Byzantine type (or "majority text"), but were older than most Byzantine types. Westcott and Hort convinced the scholarly world that their few earlier texts were more reliable than the much more numerous majority texts then is use. Westcott and Hort held very unscriptural views- the joke is that you wouldn't let them teach in your kid's Sunday school. From my reading, I get the impression they sought their own fame rather than doctrinal truth, and the textual points that they championed seem to be untrue and unchristian. Examples are the use of young maid for virgin, and the use of them instead of us in Rev 5:10 (which has only fairly recently been re-affirmed as the correct reading, if my memory is correct).

 

The KJV is based on an early or working copy of the TR, which is based on something like 6 copies of the Byzantine type, and one other manuscript, with a couple gaps filled in by the vulgate, and some vulgate language-style was used. So the TR is pretty close to the Byzantine. I lean toward the majority consensus of the Byzantine as the truest reflection of the originals, perhaps tainted by my distaste for Westcott and Hort and the textual critic culture that seemed to derive from their ilk.

 

I grew up with a KJV and I'm used to its style, the verses I learned as a kid are from the KJV, and most serious commentaries and study aids are based on the KJV. The KJV has a few problems, but they are generally widely known and easy to deal with. Two of my favorite KJV errors are in Isaiah:

 

[isa 52:14 KJV] As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

The text (and most modern translations confirm this) says He was beaten past recognition as a human, but the KJV translators appear to have deliberately softened and obfuscated the language to avoid offense.

 

-and-

 

[isa 64:6 KJV] But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Again, to avoid offense and to preserve the majesty of the language, the translators used "filthy rags" when the text actual reads "used menstrual cloths". Think about that, next time you're feeling righteous in front of God!

 

I'd like to see a majority text, modern language, word-for-word (non-paraphrase) Bible. The NKJV is close, but its constant footnote references to the critical texts are really distracting. Still hoping...

[Sevenseas]

 

 

It takes almost 45 minutes for a person's name to disappear off the board when they sign off. 

 

 

My bit of trivia for today.  So that means we are here in name only after we sign off?  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

It takes almost 45 minutes for a person's name to disappear off the board when they sign off. 

 

 

My bit of trivia for today.  So that means we are here in name only after we sign off?  

 

Basically yes.  It's also why when it tells you how many people are in chat, the number of people actually in chat is often much less.

[another_poster]

I'd like to see a majority text, modern language, word-for-word (non-paraphrase) Bible. The NKJV is close, but its constant footnote references to the critical texts are really distracting. Still hoping...

The problem with word for word is that it can miss the actual meaning of the passage. Imagine the following conversation between person A and person B.

A: Hey good buddy lets hit the road

B: 10-4

 

Now imagine a future world where they don't speak English doing a word for word translation. Problems could include

1. They decide that you need to find a person by the name of buddy who is a good person and hit the road

2. They decide that you need to find a good friend and hit the road

3. They get into endless arguments over what they are supposed to hit the road with. Some say its a stick. Others say a rock while others say you must use your hand.

What they would make of the numbers who knows. However a non word for word translation would arrive at the conclusion that it is saying Hey good friend it is time to leave and the friend would respond with Ok lets go.

 

Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying word for word translations are useless. They are still valuable to read and helpful. Of course translations that try to translate the meaning rather than words have problems as well. They could easily get the meaning wrong for example. So both methods have their pros and cons.

 

One of my issues with the KJV is that it contradicts itself. That is the translators translated the same passage differently in different places. In the NKJV it has been fixed but I find that most KJV only people I come across do not accept the NKJV. 

[another_poster]

...so I appreciate the civil discussion we have been able to have.  Everyone has been respectful, even when they don't agree. 

I realised I never thanked you for being respectful as well. I have come across several KJV only people before and you are the first not to judge and condemn me to hell for not accepting the KJV only position. Really makes me wish I had discovered this forum sooner rather than just recently.

[Trinitron]

This is an attack on God's bible found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV.

[other one]

This is an attack on God's bible found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV.

 

I am just dense this evening......    can you explain this with a bit of detail.

[mikeboll64]

Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God?

Hi Butero,

I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Which sets of manuscripts of the originals to you believe God dictated.   They are not all the same.

The originals, of course. But since we do not have access to the original writings, I settle for the oldest ones we have discovered.

It is a known fact that scribes sometimes added their own words to the texts throughout the centuries. So the closest to the originals we can get will be the better (less messed-with) mss.