Subtraction of some verses from the Bible, why and who is to be blamed

[Alex Summers]

I read through the last 2 pages, sorry if I missed something.

[Alex Summers]

Bureto, the history of the TR dates back no further than the 1500's.

What was the "official" Word of God for the 1500 years prior to that?

[hmbld]

 

Thank you for your contribution One Light.  You made my case for me with your first sentence.  "There is not one version of scripture that is 100 percent complete or accurate."  So much for God's Word being preserved.  In your mind, and in the mind of those who defend new translations, it may be 95 percent preserved, or even 98 percent preserved, but never 100 percent preserved.  Those of us who are KJV only believe God's Word is 100 percent preserved. 

 

There have been so many threads concerning this, yet you still state KJV is "100 percent preserved".  It has been shown there are errors in KJV translation also.  

[saved34]

Bureto, the history of the TR dates back no further than the 1500's.

What was the "official" Word of God for the 1500 years prior to that?

Yeah, Butero is all over the place with his responses. His stance seems to have changed from KJV Only to a now more lenient "TR Only". I am really interested to see if anyone from the King James only camp can come up with realistic reasoning for calling other translations perversions and saying people are deceived who read them. Lol the funny thing is, I've read that these same arguments were leveled against the KJV when it was released. People were saying why make another Bible translation, when they already had translations. 

[Guest shiloh357]

No, Butero.    You are moving the goal posts.    The KJV only argument is that the 1611 KJV is the only English translation that is preserved and is the only Word of God  to the English speaking people.    The fact that there are previous English versions means that we need to ask why God didn't choose to preserve the Word of God in English prior to 1611.

 

The TR, by the way, only applies to the NT.  The TR argument doesn't apply to the Old Testament, as the TR only contains the NT.   So what is the KJV only argument for the purity of the OT?

[Guest shiloh357]

No, Butero.   You are moving the goal posts when it comes to your own stated position.   You have repeatedly made the argument that is the standard KJV only argument.   I am not accusing you of only parroting someone else's argument.

 

You have repeatedly stated that the KJV is the only Word of God to he English translation.  That has been YOUR argument for years.   The problem is that not you or any other KJV only proponents can explain WHY God waited so long to preserve the Word of God in English when there were other English translations in existence prior to 1611.  You can't answer that question.  

 

The other problem for the KJV only camp is the motives behind the translation.   James V didn't have a vision or call of God to commission that translation.  The ONLY reason we have the KJV is that James V hated the Geneva Bible and the commentary in the margins that stated that even the King was subject to the laws of God.    James V wanted a new translation that superseded the Geneva Bible and would promote the divine right of Kings.  The motives James V were selfish.   He wasn't trying to do the work of God.  He was trying to advance his own reign and power.

 

And you cannot answer the issue of the OT for the KJV only position.  Your only defense has only ever been the TR (which has also gone through revisions).   But surely the KJV only position has something to say about the English preservation of the OT and why the KJV version of the OT is only preserved version?

[Alex Summers]

How does the TR date back to the early church? There are no copies of what the early church used so on what do you place your faith the TR of today is the TR of the 2nd century?

[Alex Summers]

My question is on what basis do you make the claim the TR is "the" exact copy of the letters by Paul and the rest of the New Testament?

None of the older manuscripts of the TR exist prior to the 1500's. So for all you or anyone else knows it the TR was changed 100 times between 200 and 1500 AD. With each copying process for new paper and for each church to have a copy there is an opportunity for changes to have been made.

[another_poster]

 

Thank you for your contribution One Light.  You made my case for me with your first sentence.  "There is not one version of scripture that is 100 percent complete or accurate."  So much for God's Word being preserved.  In your mind, and in the mind of those who defend new translations, it may be 95 percent preserved, or even 98 percent preserved, but never 100 percent preserved.  Those of us who are KJV only believe God's Word is 100 percent preserved. 

and people used to believe 100% that the earth was flat. Doesn't make it right just because you believe it 100%. Just like having 100% faith in Budha won't save you. 

 

 

 

The KJV agrees with all the other English translations that came along before the ones that use the Egyptian and Alexandrian text, so far as which verses are included.  This is a case where every English translation used the same established Greek and Hebrew text until a new discovery was made, and then they started using incomplete manuscripts over all the rest. 

 

 

 

OK Another Poster.  Is it ok to remove part of the original text, so long as it isn't part of Revelation, yes or no?  I thought it was you who was defending that based on the fact the curses only applied to Revelation? 

 

The KJV is a english translation so when you say english translations cause confusion then the KJV is part of that. It is also a false claim to say the KJV was translated from a single text as they translated from the Latin Vulgate in parts. 

 

 

Is it ok to remove parts of the original text is irrelevant question and pointless to discuss as we do not have the original texts. What people call the original texts are actually copies of the original. They also include text that was passed on by word of mouth which was a common practice.  

You make the same assumptions that so many others make about my comments on that verse in revelation. You assume I am happy to discard the entire bible other than revelation. Since you acknowledge reading that thread how about you comment on the fact that revelation is not the only place in scripture that that verse appears which means that since the OT scripture existed then writing the NT must have been sinful and authors subject to a curse for adding to what was already established scripture. Can't have it both ways. Don't read more into what I say than what I have actually said. It is a bit like when I say the virgin birth is not an essential doctrine. People suddenly start demanding to know why I don't believe it. I have never said I don't believe it just that it is not essential doctrine.

[another_poster]

First of all, I don't hold to KJV only based on what other KJV only people teach.  I am KJV only based on my own experiences with the new translations, so I came to my own conclusions.  I can move the goal post anywhere I want, because they are my opinions, not someone else's.  As far as going from KJV only to TR only, that was something that happened a long time ago, and you can see that I have been TR only for sometime if you read my past arguments on this subject.  If you want the entire story of my progression, I am happy to give it to you.  

Then start showing others the same courtesy. You listed all these arguments that not a single person here made in this thread and demanded we defend them. So either you defend the arguments made by others or don't demand others do what you are not willing to do yourself. 

 

Still the point made is still valid. A rebuttal was put forward but you decided to treat it as an argument instead of a rebuttal. That does not work.

 

 

It also causes confusion, because people are reading from translations that aren't saying the same thing.   

If every single person only used the NIV then everyone would be reading the same thing so that argument doesn't stand.

 

 

I do want to add one thing to what I posted earlier.  While my main objection to the new translations is the fact they leave out part of the text, and that is what caused me to become KJV only, and now TR only, I still have concerns over the open door for abuse all these translations cause, like creating translations to pervert the meaning, 

except you still have not provided anything other than your opinion on if those parts are legitimately part of the original text or not. For other reasons which you have stated you want that to be the case otherwise it causes doubt for you. Thats fine. It isn't an issue for me however and you should not assume I will start picking and choosing because it doesn't suit me. I can't help but think there is a bit of projection going on here.

 

I have heard this they pervert the meaning argument so many times. People have given me passage after passage where they claim it was changed. I have gone through sixty* different passages that KJV only people have given me and not one of them changed the meaning. It just doesn't stack up. 

 

*I know it was sixty because I copied the list into a file and looked at them carefully one by one. They were numbered.

 

 

 

 

I am not making a baseless claim about the comment that the most reliable manuscripts leave out portions of the text.  That is in the new translations, and those who are defending the new translations, including you Another One, are defending what they are doing.  Explain how those two manuscripts are more reliable than all they other ones they had at their disposal?  

You claim to listen to others but you still don't get it. You still aren't listening. I do not need to defend their actions. I do not make the claim that they are more accurate. That they tell me some translations include extra bits shows they are not trying to hide anything. If they were trying to hide it then they would make no mention of it. 

 

I also find it interesting that you have never adequately addressed the issue of word for word translations potentially missing the meaning of the passage. I have in the past given example and mentioned it several times in threads but you never answered it.