KJV vs other Bibles

[Jeff2]

And the Byzantine text, and the Latin Vulgate, the sources of the Textus Receptus, and the Homosexual King James inspired Bible has a Millennium of compiled corruption (no manuscript of the mere five selected was older than 1,000 after they were originally written, and even those five did not agree,) thousands of errors, also in the meaning of words, phrases completely added that don't even exist in a single Greek manuscript, to include their own, and changing meanings of texts in certain areas.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Jeff2

[simplejeff]

2 hours ago, Giller said:

I thank God for the people who got saved through other bibles, but would not recommend people to continue in those bibles unless there was one that came about that was based on the good text, and was accurate , because I have saw a lot of things which can persuade people in another direction, and bring doubt to the word.

Not if a person follows JESUS, believes in JESUS, listens to JESUS, the GOOD SHEPHERD,

when they come to HIM,  and do as HE SAYS,  and HEARS HIS VOICE,  (is saved using a Living Bible, or any other),

is as HE SAYS better than devoting ones whole life to searching the SCRIPTURES thinking one will find life there but rejecting JESUS.

Whenever 2 or 3 are gathered together talking about YHWH, 'even if they are using and reading "The English Bible",   it is so important to HIM that HE keeps a permanent record of their words and says so in MALACHI, and elsewhere. 

Elsewhere , of course, it is written that everyone will account for every careless word , every empty word they speak also.

[Deborah_]

Every manuscript, every Bible translation has passed through the hands and minds of sinners. They are all equally 'tainted' in that respect.

 

Come to think of it, every person who had a hand in writing the Bible was a sinner too...

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

Every manuscript, every Bible translation has passed through the hands and minds of sinners. They are all equally 'tainted' in that respect.

 

Come to think of it, every person who had a hand in writing the Bible was a sinner too...

This is why we (ecclesia trusting and relying on YHWH HIMSELF, daily,  every day)

do not put our trust in anyone without proving them by YHWH'S WORD and PRAYER as YHWH directs,

not even in the Apostle's IF any message ever comes or seems to come from one IT IS TESTED and PROVEN BEFORE being accepted.   That's why so many billions got deceived from early centuries thru TODAY - they did not trust YHWH and did not TEST the "messages" (doctrines) BEFORE accepting them - thus many doctrines of the flesh, men, and of demons got introduced and used to trick people and to keep them oppressed.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

13 hours ago, Giller said:

Anyhow I guess I will leave it at that, and I do believe that the the things that came from Antioch is the accurate text, and that God preserved his word, for he said he would.

And the Alexandrian text, has very much corruption, thousands of errors, also in the meaning of words, phrases taken out, and changing meanings of texts in certain areas.

I thank God for the people who got saved through other bibles, but would not recommend people to continue in those bibles unless there was one that came about that was based on the good text, and was accurate , because I have saw a lot of things which can persuade people in another direction, and bring doubt to the word.

Any hows God love ya's.

Giller you're getting frustrated because you sources are being rejected. 

I'm not going to try to convince you either way. I just asked a question. Why is it that I can find all kinds of information about the so called alexandrian  manuscripts. But can not find out what manuscripts where used to create the textus receptus which became the foundation upon which the KJV was built. So far the best response is byzatine and antiock manuscripts. No links to their history, no information to validate the claims of them being superior. No online digital scans. Nothing to be able to prove the claims they are superior. Lots of links to sources that make convincing arguments that they are superior. But just no hard information.

You make all sorts of claim about the Alexadrian manuscripts being corrupted and than you quote sources that are so wrong on basic history. So why would I trust a sources that is so corrupt themselves. Better question is why would YOU trust a source that is so wrong on a simple point like the septuigent being written by Origen.

Just because someone is saying something that you agree with doesn't make what they say is right. You both could be wrong. 

I myself have used sources that I later found were not as good as I thought. So when reading something from that source moving forward I am more critical of what is being  said  and will verify it as truth or error. 

I find that to be a lacking quality today. People are told something and just take it at face value because it matches their world view, religious view or what ever else. I'm not immune to this either, I can become complacent sometimes with certain sources I look to. When I challenge something on this forum I try to use two primary sources.

1. Scripture 

2. Protestant sources. 

I can quote non Protestant sources all day long. It's not going to do me any good because generally folks aren't open to anything else. It's Pagan or it's of the devil or Satan etc etc. 

I will however quote Catholic sources when someone is bearing false witness against it. I would do the same for any faith tradition..... interesting enough it primarily the ROMAN Catholic Church that is most often attacked. Don't hear much attacking of the Orthodox Church who share very closely in theology and ceremony. Don't hear many attacks against the Chaldeans or Marionites. Nope.  Just them evil Romans. 

I can not put a percentage on it, but it's because of people like Jack Chick and the last source you quoted. They spew their bias and discrimination and no one fact checks them. Or they use equally biased and discriminatory sources to fact check. 

This is why I use 3 independent source. 1 that supports my postion, a secular source and a third source either neutral or against my position.  

Anyways, I think this horse is glue about now. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
Fixed a couple auto correct errors

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 2017-04-01 at 11:32 AM, Giller said:

Here is interesting info, if someone cares to read it, and no it is not by Chick, but by this guy Doug Stauffer

I've finished your post, in the future can you provide a link to the source material? The formatting was removed and there for no way to check the footnotes. That would have been useful. 

 

[simplejeff]

On 4/1/2017 at 9:32 AM, Giller said:

Here is interesting info, if someone cares to read it, and no it is not by Chick, but by this guy Doug Stauffer.

Now I know some will reject this info., but if you look at the word itself, of what it says of Antioch, which is were the documents, that eventually brought about the KJV came from, and were most modern translations got their documents from, which is Alexandria, that itself can tell us a story.

Not much good was said of Alexandria, but good stuff was said of Antioch, which brought forth a great witness.

Act 11:25-27
(25)  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
(26)  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(27)  And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

So down below is the stuff from Doug.
 

(The Bible’s Family Tree – Simplified

The “original autographs” refer to the actual manuscripts penned by the writers of each of the 66 books of the Bible. They were written in manuscript form by one of God’s apostles or prophets. The original autograph was given to the nation of Israel (Old Testament) or a local New Testament church. Some New Testament epistles were sent to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, primarily chose the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages to be used for the originals of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Both of these tongues became “dead languages” within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. The words actually became “frozen in time.” Thus, the words and their meanings could not change. They became, as Latin, dead languages with fixed properties of meaning.

In contrast, English is a living language.  As such, new words are constantly being added to the English language, and old words remain in a state of flux. ⁴  For instance, the fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, released in the year 2000, advertises its product with the following quote: “This edition has nearly 10,000 new words and senses that reflect the rapid pace of change in the English language today.” ⁵  Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?

These original manuscripts (autographs) penned by the authors wore out from use. When certain other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. desired a copy of a sacred writing, a copy was made for them. These copies are called “manuscripts” because they were written with pen and ink (prior to the advent of the printing press and typesetting).

Frequently, scribes were known to have destroyed old, worn manuscripts after the new copies had been made (a process analogous to our disposal of a weathered flag). These scribes were not concerned with holding onto the originals because they had faithfully copied the text. This faithful copying resulted in the faithful promulgation of God’s word to subsequent generations. The only alternative explanation of the history of the Bible is that God’s promise has failed and the words of God have indeed passed away (Matthew 24:35).

Other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. made copies of these manuscripts until, eventually, copies of the sacred writings had been distributed all over the world. The written word of God spread in much the same way as the verbal word of God spread in the first century.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased…

     

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

 

      Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Warning: Satan’s henchmen were busy creating and copying some manuscripts at this time, too. Church history and the Bible warn about early corruption of the words of God. For instance, the Apostle Paul warns Christians in the first century of Satan’s devices: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (II Corinthians 2:17). Nelson Floyd Jones’ apt description of the early days of New Testament corruption contradicts the standard Bible critic’s position.

Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church ‘Fathers’ disagree with him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that ‘many’ were corrupting the Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered the text for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of Scripture were named by the mid-second century by these church Fathers. For example, Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to 176) said that the Scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day. Many modern scholars recognize that most variations were made deliberately.⁶ 
 

God’s Line of Manuscripts versus Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

The copies that were proven to be good copies were “received” by the synagogues and local churches and became known as the “Received Text.” Of the 5,262 Greek witnesses to the text of the New Testament, 80% are in full agreement with the true text; a full 90% of the witnesses agree 97% of the time! ⁷  In addition, ALL 2,143 Greek lectionaries support the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. (Lectionaries are manuscripts containing scripture lessons read publicly in the churches. In other words, the churches that utilized the lectionaries ALL used the text that gave birth to the King James Bible!!!!!)

In 1382, John Wycliffe gave his people their first English translation of the Bible. He became known as the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Regretfully, because of his lack of knowledge in Greek and Hebrew, he based his work primarily on the Latin manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was derived from Adamantius Origen’s corrupted Greek Hexapla, commonly referred to as the Septuagint – LXX. Foxe confirms Wycliffe’s use of the Latin in his comments about William Tyndale. Tyndale was the first individual to return to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. All of the English versions before Tyndale were translations of a translation, all derived from the Vulgate or older Latin versions. ⁸ 

Wycliffe was hated for his attempt to give the common people the words of God in the English language. In 1415, he was posthumously condemned for heresy by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance. The Council ordered his bones exhumed and burned. The orders were carried out in 1428 when they unearthed them, burned them to ashes, and threw them into the river Swift.

In 1516, a scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was led of God to produce the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Although he did not have a complete text, he used the manuscripts available to him to produce a Greek New Testament, which later became known as the Textus Receptus. Some claim that his work was inferior because he was supposedly ignorant of the competing text types. This is simply not true. Documentation exists to prove that he did in fact have knowledge of the Vaticanus manuscript and had regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, concerning it. ⁹  Furthermore, a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda sent extracts of the Codex Vaticanus to Erasmus, in an attempt to convince him of its superiority. ¹⁰  After considering the material provided him, Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus as a variant text type. (Vaticanus is discussed further under Satan’s line of manuscripts.) Thus, Erasmus knew of the text used by modern bible critics almost 100 years prior to the King James Bible, but considered Vaticanus, as well as the other Alexandrian texts to be variants.

Erasmus was the most unlikely candidate to be used of God. Yet, he was uniquely qualified. Who better to expose the fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church than one completely familiar with its ways? Although Erasmus had been raised and trained by Catholic monks, he was a true man of character. He spent his life writing about and protesting the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic system. His true friends were the Protestant scholars among whom he lived and died.

Cambridge historian Owen Chadwick said he was an “ex-monk…a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money he left was used to help Protestant refugees.” ¹¹  He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel. Erasmus shows up on Sebastian Frank’s list of heretics of the Roman Catholic Church. ¹²  The Council of Trent condemned Erasmus’ translation of the Bible because it did not match their corrupt Vulgate translation, but rather the text of true Christianity. In 1559, the pope placed Erasmus’ writings on The Index of Forbidden Books, just as the word of God had been placed on that list in 1229. ¹³  The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 about the same time as the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the 45 articles decreed by the Council dealt with heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 2 - The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.

Canon 14 - We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue. ¹⁴ 

No matter how much the Roman Catholic Church fought against those that tried to spread the word of God throughout the world, truth still prevailed. The Textus Receptus was eventually translated into other languages, including French, Dutch, Danish, and Czech. Other well-known Bibles were also produced from Erasmus’ work. These included the Swedish Uppsala Bible, the Spanish Reyna, the Italian Diodati version, and Martin Luther’s German Bible.

.......

 

Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

In 1475, a manuscript was logged into the Vatican library known as Codex Vaticanus. It was “rediscovered” almost four centuries later (in 1845) and has become instrumental in influencing modern scholarship. It dates to around A.D. 350.

In 1844, a second Alexandrian manuscript, called Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. This manuscript also dates to about A.D. 350. Many scholars believe that these copies are two of the 50 copies that the Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to prepare for the new churches he planned to build in Constantinople. Thus, Origen (the Gnostic) influenced Eusebius (his favorite student); Eusebius influenced the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts; and – in turn – every modern version taken from these two manuscripts was corrupted!  Neither the Vaticanus nor the Sinaiticus was accepted as a “received” text. Thousands of changes have been noted within their pages by many different scribes throughout history.

In 1853, two men named Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort set out to write a Greek text based on these two Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus). Since these two texts by then disagreed with each other in some 3,036 places in the four Gospel books alone, the two men had to come up with a completely subjective text influenced by their heretical views. Consequently, they wrote an “eclectic” text, meaning they preferentially picked and chose certain portions of scripture from the Vaticanus manuscript and other portions from the Sinaiticus manuscript until they produced a rendering that satisfactorily conveyed their doctrines. (BUT “…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” II Peter 1:20.).

Scrivener reported 15,000 alterations in the text of Sinaiticus “brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.” ²³ 

Therefore, it stands to reason that no matter how closely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus once agreed, with so many alterations these witnesses could no longer agree. Regarding the thousands of changes in the seventh century, Scrivener wrote: “The one object of this corrector was to assimilate the Codex to manuscripts more in vogue in his time, and approaching far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.” ²⁴ 

In 1898, a revision of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text was made and called “Nestle’s Greek Text.” The majority of Bible colleges today use Nestle’s Greek text (the Aland-Nestle²⁶ or the UBS³) although it differs greatly from the Textus Receptus. Despite this fact, the new versions arise from these corrupted texts, while the King James Bible stands alone in its use of the Textus Receptus and its rejection of the readings from the corrupt texts. (Note: UBS³ stands for the third edition of the United Bible Society.)

Westcott and Hort had an unusual rule of thumb for determining which Greek text to choose when there was a variant reading. They chose the “neutral” approach. Basically, this meant that the variant (the difference between the Greek texts) was approached from the perspective that the reading that should be chosen would be the one that reflects the least doctrinal bias (i.e. the one that is most neutral). For instance, they chose to use the word who or he in I Timothy 3:16 rather than God (used in the Textus Receptus) because they hypothesized that some well-meaning scribe inserted God into the passage. According to their theory, the variants were caused by God’s people, rather than those who had set out to corrupt the scripture (II Corinthians 2:17). This is preposterous and anti-scriptural!

Typical of this philosophy, James White justifies the changes in the modern versions using various unproven hypotheses such as: “scribal expansion,” ²⁵  “parallel passage corruption,” ²⁶  “scribal harmonization,” ²⁷  “parallel corruption,” ²⁸  and “parallel influence.”²⁹  Johann Jakob Griesbach concurs with this theory that the corrupted text is the one that contains a dogmatic position on doctrine. Read the illogical conclusions for yourself:

When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious.  ³⁰ 

If the subject were not so serious, this absurd position would be humorous. Such a theory certainly has no basis in the spiritual realm. We are not talking about just any book. We are discussing a book that Satan hates! Ignorance of the truth has always been his greatest ally. To attribute the changes to “well-meaning godly men,” rather than to satanic influence borders on lunacy. Dr. Samuel Gipp succinctly speaks from the Bible believing, spiritual perspective.

If Satan can eliminate the Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its accuracy, he can successfully foil God’s every attempt to teach us.  ³¹ 

Westcott and Hort’s theory of corruption has been proven false by unquestionable evidence. Dean Burgon dedicated 84 pages of evidence to support the KJB rendering of I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” and to invalidate the modern version rendering of “He who was manifest in the flesh.” Out of 254 manuscripts and translations in other languages personally examined by Dean John Burgon, 252 contained the reading supporting the KJB. ³²  This equates to greater than 99% agreement with the King James reading and less than 1% siding with the readings found in the modern versions.

Compare the magnitude of evidence from the correct reading with the typical footnote found in most modern versions: “Some manuscripts read God.” The modern version editors fail to tell you that the two manuscripts supporting the corrupt reading are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. According to the critic’s theory, these two manuscripts should be given precedence because they do not contain as dogmatic a doctrinal stand. Here is the standard line of the liberals and neo-fundamentalists as excerpted from the book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man.

The discovery of some ancient Greek manuscripts late in the nineteenth century produced a revolution in the understanding of the Greek New Testament. These discoveries have changed the editing of Greek texts into a new quest to define the original text. These texts are based on new witnesses not previously known and new approaches to interpreting the variations. Beginning in the 1880s, printed Greek New Testaments were developed with significant differences from the traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text.³³ 

According to this modern philosophy, God’s promise of providential preservation of the scriptures failed until Tishendorf, Tragelles, and Westcott and Hort “providentially” discovered it in the mid-nineteenth century. Consider the dire implications – the text used by the church for 1,500 years and the same one that aided the cause of the Protestant Reformation was really not the preserved text. Instead, infidels rediscovered it during a time of great unbelief – the time of evolution, liberalism, Freud, and Marx. True biblical historians trace the great confusion and discord among believers today back to this period of uncertainty and unbelief.)

 

On 4/1/2017 at 9:36 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Love the info here. Good post.

Amein.

I still don't know Doug,  but didn't see anything posted that contradicts SCRIPTURE, so far,  so that's good.   Much explains some of "why" things happened in history  -  not so much needed for faith in YHWH and for trusting HIS WORD,  but everything true, when rightly used,  simply shows the amazing and perfect work of YHWH caring for YHWH'S children and guarding YHWH'S WORD.

[Jeff2]

I know that certain sources claim that King James was a Homosexual, but others who have studied these claims, found out that these claims were written by people who hated King James at that time, and did false claims concerning him.

 

Some comic book writer?

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:42 AM, Giller said:

and I hear that there is coming a bible , that wants to remove, the whole book of Revelation !!!

Where did you hear about that one? I want to read up about that

[TheMatrixHasU71]

17 hours ago, Giller said:

I know that certain sources claim that King James was a Homosexual, but others who have studied these claims, found out that these claims were written by people who hated King James at that time, and did false claims concerning him.

I have heard that one too. Not only is it total nonsense to begin with....(and note that a supposedly gay KJ did NOTHING to soften or eliminate the passages regarding homosexuality in the KJB) even if he was (just sayin' you know) ...who cares? He didn't write the KJ translation he merely commissioned it.