King james bible only

[ayin jade]

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

There was a kjv found among the dead sea scrolls? Imagine that. They were ahead of their time.

[GoldenEagle]

 

I have one more thing I want to add before I sign out this morning.  There was a day when people said they believe the Bible was God's Word and it meant something.  They weren't talking about manuscripts that no longer exist when they said the Bible is God's Word.  They meant the Bible in their hand was God's Word.  There was a day, before we were flooded with new translations, that we had the KJV Bible, and people believed all the verses were the Word of God.  Then came the new translations, and with the stroke of a pen telling us that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." we began to doubt if some of what we accepted as truth was truth.  That includes the entire last part of the book of Mark.  Why in the world should a sinner believe anything you people say is true from scripture, when you cast doubt on it being 100 percent accurate?  You present them with "the Romans road."  How do they know those scriptures are fully accurate?  You can't even point them to fully accurate manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek anymore.  I would laugh at a minister presenting the Bible that way.  I would question whether or not anything they said was true.  Thank God that when I was persuaded to believe in Christ, the minister actually believed the entire Bible was the Word of God, and didn't question it. 

and there was a day before we were flooded with new translations that we had the KJV and we treated people with legitimate medical conditions as if they were demon possessed and we locked them up. Back in those days it was also sinful to wear a hat in church even though that could not be scripturally supported. I could go on about all these various views that were once firmly believed but no longer are but I hope you get the point. Just because something was seen one way in the past does not mean it was right.

 

Another Poster that is a really interesting point.

[OneLight]

From what I have found in my research, I would not say the most reliable manuscripts.  Instead, I would opt to say it is what is found in all manuscripts. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

There was a kjv found among the dead sea scrolls? Imagine that. They were ahead of their time.

 

I feel confident he means there was a complete copy of the TR found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he did say a KJV was found there.  Even so, I know what he meant. 

 

That is impossible because the TR is based on Eramsus' Greek NT manuscript known as the Novum Instrumentum.  So it is impossible for the Textus Receptus would not have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Dead Sea Scrolls contained OT Scriptures, not NT Scriptures and the TR is only for the NT. 

[another_poster]

What is interesting about it?  There is a huge difference in things we personally believed and something the Bible says that is now being discredited. 

It is not personal belief. It was church doctrine. Church doctrine based on text found in scripture. While they like to deny it these days there is no doubt that worldwide this was done. That simply can not be classified as personal belief. All because they decided that a demon possessed person described in the bible sounded the same as seizures.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

There was a kjv found among the dead sea scrolls? Imagine that. They were ahead of their time.

 

I feel confident he means there was a complete copy of the TR found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he did say a KJV was found there.  Even so, I know what he meant. 

 

That is impossible because the TR is based on Eramsus' Greek NT manuscript known as the Novum Instrumentum.  So it is impossible for the Textus Receptus would not have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Dead Sea Scrolls contained OT Scriptures, not NT Scriptures and the TR is only for the NT. 

 

You will have to take that up with the person that said that, because I didn't make that claim.  BTW, that is an interesting point Shiloh.  If these older manuscripts they have found and used in modern translations are all OT, how can they claim they are finding NT manuscripts that are supposedly older than the TR that don't contain portions of the text found in the TR and used in the KJV Bible?  What manuscripts are they speaking of?  What manuscripts left out the last portion of Mark chapter 16? 

 

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.

[Macs Son]

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

There was a kjv found among the dead sea scrolls? Imagine that. They were ahead of their time.

I feel confident he means there was a complete copy of the TR found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he did say a KJV was found there.  Even so, I know what he meant.

That is impossible because the TR is based on Eramsus' Greek NT manuscript known as the Novum Instrumentum.  So it is impossible for the Textus Receptus would not have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Dead Sea Scrolls contained OT Scriptures, not NT Scriptures and the TR is only for the NT.

You will have to take that up with the person that said that, because I didn't make that claim.  BTW, that is an interesting point Shiloh.  If these older manuscripts they have found and used in modern translations are all OT, how can they claim they are finding NT manuscripts that are supposedly older than the TR that don't contain portions of the text found in the TR and used in the KJV Bible?  What manuscripts are they speaking of?  What manuscripts left out the last portion of Mark chapter 16?

I believe for the most part we are just trying to get it right, as Jesus said

But now I come to You, (the Father) and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

So clearly it is the Word of God that is Truth and which sanctifies us and the Word was given for a testimony to these men

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

So the reason why we want to restore our translations to the earliest and most reliable manuscript copies is because we want to get as close to the original autographs of the apostles as possible and eliminate marginal notes that somehow crept into the main text. It would seem that this is a good goal since Jesus said for those who believe in Him "through their word". That is the Word that is ultimately the most important to us and not commentators who had MS' that were centuries removed from the original hand. Just my 2 cents.

In Christ, Pat

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

I want to address one more point off of this comment.  You say there are over 5000 Greek copies of the NT that date back as far as the early 2nd century?  We know that some of these are incomplete and leave out portions of our currently accepted text based on what new translators have already done. 

 

That's because some of the those copies are fragments, but they agree at all points of comparison.  They span from the early 2nd century to as late as the fifth century.

 

 

Can you imagine the opportunity that exists for abuse.  You could claim any fragment or incomplete manuscript is the most reliable one and leave out nearly anything you want. 

 

That's not what they do, though.  What one manuscript lacks, is contained in another.  So they are not leaving out anything they want.

 

You know, Butero, you are clearly not familiar with how they handle manuscripts and manuscript criticism.  Instead of just running with whatever thought pops in your head, why not familiarize yourself with how it actually works?

 

 

We are supposed to look at this explanation and think it is acceptable for leaving out part of the previously accepted text???  I don't!  This is worse than what I had thought was taking place.  As far as I am concerned, we are seeing one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the Christian church by these modern English translators. 

 

Yeah, again that is just something you are manufacturing in your head because you don't know anything about they handle the manuscripts.  Let me tell you something else. Not only do they have 5,000 manuscripts, but there are over 20,000 Greek extra biblical quotations of the Greek NT. These date back even further to the first century.  So they are able to find writings by people who are as close as possible to the original Greek manuscripts and the those quotations at every point of comparison agree with every point of comparison between the 5,000 actual NT manuscripts.

 

The extra biblical quotations are so accurate and extensive that we can reproduce the entire NT just from those quotations.

[another_poster]

There are all kinds of church doctrines.  Some are good and some are bad.  That has nothing to do with this topic.  As a matter of fact, you are always going to have questions over whether or not a person is possessed verses whether or not they have mental or physical illness.  That still takes place today.  I have seen true demon possession and I have seen mental illness and this is not always easy.  If you want to discuss that, it might be an interesting topic for another thread. 

Yes thats true but it does relate to the topic in that I made the point in response to your argument that people believed something for ages so there must be a validity to it.

 

I did want to ask a question which I have not seen you answer satisfactorily. You ask the question why other manuscripts are called reliable and that the claim has not been supported. Why is it that the KJV and TR are reliable? What makes them reliable while others are questionable for not including the same thing? 

 

The reasons the KJV became so widely used have very little or perhaps nothing to do with the quality of the translation. It is a bit like Microsoft Office. There are better products around but Office is most widely used because it is the industry standard and the format that people expect documents in. Nothing to do with quality of the program just like the KJV has nothing to do with quality of translation.