King James Bible Debate!!!

[He giveth more grace]

A Blast Against the NIV

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent which was translated from a corrupted, counterfeit text by, at least in some cases, corrupt translators. The NIV is not the Word of God. It is not the Sword of the Spirit. It is a corrupt sword forged in the devil's foundry.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82603122659

An MP3 Sermon on http://www.sermonaudio.com

Edited November 5, 2006 by Monarchy

[kittylover0991]

The NIV is no more "corrupt" (your word, not mine) than any other translation.

Actually, the NIV is corrupt because the Minority Text is corrupt and that is what the NIV is based on. The Authorized King James Translation is based on the Majority Text, and Seminary or Bible School student will know that. Not to be argue the point.

I have been, Hebrew University...also am fluent in Hebrew and NT Greek. You're blowing smoke, dude. You need to read Geisler and Nix's excellent From God To Us, which details how we got our Bible. Then you will be able to make correct statements. You KJV-onlies are a funny lot!

...but, you love us so much as brothers in Christ, you'll die for us KJV only's right? Can we be Christians without caricaturizing one another (i.e. funny lot).

http://home.sprynet.com/%7Eeagreen/kjv-4.htm

As a young man and years before his involvement with the Revision Committee, Hort had already developed a negative predisposition toward the Textus Receptus. At age twenty-three he wrote to an acquaintance: "...I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament. and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.... Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts; it is a blessing there are such early ones." [from Life and Letters of F.J.A Hort]

What are the early manuscripts that Hort refers to in his letter? When the Translation Committee convened thirty years later in 1881, the influential Westcott and Hort didn't come empty handed-- they brought their new Greek text based on those early manuscripts.

Minority Texts-- What Are They?

The Minority Texts are the basis of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. They are: Vaticanus Codex, Sinaitic Codex, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae. Of these, the Vaticanus and Sinaitic Codex are of particular significance because of the importance given them by Westcott and Hort. Their fascination with these two codices is especially queer considering these two codices contradict each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.

Hey!!! lol I get it!!!!! I had been wondering if you meant "Majority Text" which is basically shown by the greek alphabet letter that looks like an "M", used in the Nestle Aland. It represents a "Majority of texts" of about 600-800 texts so it kind of confused me when you said "minority texts". That is really cool!

but I thought that W-H only based their work off of Aleph and B(Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), not Alexandrian, Parisian, and Bezae.... I know that the Nestle Aland was based off of Aleph and B and then .. I think it was USB??? something like that ... but they went verse by verse and in most cases, Aleph and B were closely related and those are the verses that they went with. I don't quite understand...

[He giveth more grace]

Hey!!! lol I get it!!!!! I had been wondering if you meant "Majority Text" which is basically shown by the greek alphabet letter that looks like an "M", used in the Nestle Aland. It represents a "Majority of texts" of about 600-800 texts so it kind of confused me when you said "minority texts". That is really cool!

but I thought that W-H only based their work off of Aleph and B(Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), not Alexandrian, Parisian, and Bezae.... I know that the Nestle Aland was based off of Aleph and B and then .. I think it was USB??? something like that ... but they went verse by verse and in most cases, Aleph and B were closely related and those are the verses that they went with. I don't quite understand...

I think you are right concerning that difinetion (more or less) of Majority Text.

______

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

The answer is because:

• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
  
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
  
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
  
• Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
  
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
  
• Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
  
• Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
  

For more from this site, go to:

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-3.html

[He giveth more grace]

A must read for those who care that there is a Sovriegnly (sp?) perserved text and that there is a counterfeit.

PART ONE has brought many vital facts to your attention; the most important of which is that unbelieving copyists and unbelieving translators have laid the ground for the production of millions of modern English Bibles which are nothing more than counterfeits of the Real Word of God - the Authorised King James Version. Let me now summarise Part One.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/summary.html

[Marnie]

A Blast Against the NIV

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent which was translated from a corrupted, counterfeit text by, at least in some cases, corrupt translators. The NIV is not the Word of God. It is not the Sword of the Spirit. It is a corrupt sword forged in the devil's foundry.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82603122659

An MP3 Sermon on http://www.sermonaudio.com

Sermon Audio is populated by preachers who are KJV-onlies, guys from the Free Presbyterian Church and so on. There is nothing wrong with Dynamic Eqivalent translation and your "corrupted text" claims are your opinions. The following article will likely cause KJV-only heads to explode, but take the time to read it.

Here are the facts about the so-called Testus Receptus by Dr. Allan A. MacRae and Dr. Robert C. Newman, BIBLICAL SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, Hatfield, Pennsylvania

Q: How did the term "textus receptus" originate?

A: It originated through a highly exaggerated statement--actually a publisher's blurb--in the preface to the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book "the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." This is how this Latin term "textus receptus" (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament. On the European continent, aside from Great Britain, the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.

Q: Did the King James translators use this "textus receptus" as the basis for their translation?

A: No. Even the first Elzevir editions was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV.

Q: What was the Greek text on which the KJV New Testament was based?

A: It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament, issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.

Q: Was the text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based identical with the later "textus receptus"?

A: No. The two differed in 287 places.

Q: How many Greek manuscripts agree exactly with the edition published by Stephanus, and how many agree exactly with the edition published by Elzevir?

A: There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with either of these. Both of them are conflate texts.

Q: Were the scholars who prepared the King James Version convinced that their text was absolutely correct?

A: No. They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6, where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "Or, as some copies read, _no more than eight or ten days._"

Q: What was the source of most of the readings found both in the edition of Stephanus and in that of Elzevir?

A: Most of the readings in both of these follow the edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in 1516, the year before the Reformation began.

Q: How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?

A: There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.

Q: To whom was the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus dedicated?

A: It was dedicated to Pope Leo X, the pope who later condemned Luther and the Reformation. It is believed that this pope gave Erasmus' publisher the exclusive right to publish the Greek New Testament for a period of time.

Q: Have better manuscripts been discovered than those on which the textus receptus was based?

A: During the three and one-half centuries since the King James Version was made dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

Q: Does this mean that the textus receptus is a harmful text?

A: The additions in the textus receptus do not contain any idea that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament in parts that agree with the earlier manuscripts. The differences consist mainly of repetitions of ideas already contained elsewhere in the Scripture.

Q: Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?

A: God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers. It is impossible to copy a book of any length without making some mistakes. In the case of the New Testament we have more evidence for determining the text of the original writers than for any other book from ancient times. While there is rarely anything harmful in the later manuscripts, it is desirable, if we truly wish to know God's Word, to base our text, as far as possible, on early manuscripts.

Q: What is meant by the Byzantine Text?

A: Shortly before A.D. 400 the Roman empire was divided into two parts, the western Roman empire and the eastern or Byzantine empire. Within a century after this division the western empire came to an end, and western Europe sank into a state of near barbarism. The Byzantine empire continued, though often in a greatly weakened state, until A.D. 1453.

For about a thousand years, the Greek language was completely unknown in western Europe, but remained the official language of the Byzantine empire. During this time both portions of the former Roman empire contained many monasteries in which the monks were required to do a certain amount of work each day. One way to fulfill this work requirement was to copy manuscripts. In the western monasteries Latin manuscripts, including the Latin Bible, were copied and recopied by the monks. In the Byzantine monasteries Greek manuscripts were copied, including copies of the Greek Bible. Some of these scribes were greatly interested in what they were copying, but to others the copying was merely an assigned task. In the course of copying, little mistakes invariably come in, so that no two manuscripts of the Latin Bible or of the Greek Bible are exactly the same. During this period, as visitors passed from one Byzantine monastery to another, and manuscripts were interchanged from time to time, the tendency naturally developed to bring the manuscripts into harmony with one another. Where early manuscripts differed slightly there was tendency to combine the readings. Thus there developed a text which is found, with many variations, in the manuscripts copied in the Byzantine empire in the later middle ages.

Q: Sometimes a whole verse is said to be missing from the best manuscripts. Would not such an omission be obvious because of the verse number being skipped?

A: Our system of numbering verses in not found in Greek manuscripts. The first publication in which the New Testament was divided into numbered verses was the 4th edition by Stephanus, which he published in Geneva in 1551, after fleeing from Paris.

Q: Some say that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark were not part of the original. What do you think of this?

A: There is a strong possibility that the end of the Gospel of Mark was lost from certain important manuscripts at a very early time. Some early manuscripts stop abruptly at the end of V. 8 of the last chapter. Yet there was doubtless an ending, for it is extremely unlikely that the Gospel of Mark stopped with the words "and there were afraid." It may have been the short ending that is found in some ancient manuscripts, or it may have been the longer ending that occurs in the later manuscripts. Practically everything in this longer ending is also clearly stated in the Gospel of Luke. The question whether it was also stated at the end of the original Gospel of Mark is interesting, but not of any great importance for Christian life or thought. There is only one statement of importance in Mark that is not in Luke: "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Whether this was part of the original Gospel of Mark or not, it is certainly true that God can protect His people in this way whenever He chooses to do so, as is shown by the experience of Paul described in Acts 28:3-6.

Q: Do early manuscripts omit the word Christ at many places where it is included in the _textus receptus_ and thereby show themselves to be unchristian?

A: The Gospels always speak of our Lord as Jesus. The book of Acts uses the word "Jesus" alone 35 times, "Jesus Christ" 10 times, and "the Lord Jesus Christ" 6 times in the KJV. It would be quite erroneous to conclude from this that the author of Acts does not like the word "Christ." Different writers show different preferences in this regard. As scribes copied manuscripts in century after century it was easy for a scribe unintentionally to write a longer form even where a shorter one occurred, so the word Christ occurs more frequently in later manuscripts than in earlier ones. Yet even in the latest manuscripts we find that Jesus is often called by shorter terms. The use of the longer phrase in referring to the Lord does not necessarily show greater piety or greater loyalty to Christ.

Q: It is sometimes said that since God gave an inerrant bible in the original we can be sure that He would cause that it be preserved without error. What do you think of this statement?

A: This is the sort of argument that rests on human ideas and not on God's revelation. One might as well say that if God gave His Son to die for the sins of all who will believe on His Name we can then be sure that every person who has lived since that time would be fully informed about Him. We know that this is not true. Millions of people have died without ever hearing about Christ. There are people in this country who have attended church faithfully all their lives, but have only heard the social Gospel and have never been told how they could be saved through Christ. We know that whatever God does is best, but we do not have the wisdom to say that He must have done things in a certain way.

God has cause that the books of the Bible should be marvelously preserved. We can get extremely near to the precise text as it came from the hands of the authors, but there are many minor points on which we cannot be sure. None of these points affect any important fact of Christian doctrine or life.

God could have caused His Word to have been written on tables of stone and preserved in a room kept at exactly the same temperature, protected from any change, like the authoritative standards kept by the U.S. government. He did not choose to do so. This is a simple fact. No two manuscripts of the New Testament exactly agree. No manuscript agrees exactly with the _textus receptus_.

There is more material available to see how the Bible has been translated and to try to get near to the exact word of the original authors than of any other book from ancient times. We can be very sure that we are very near to the original text. We cannot say that we have it exactly. Maybe some us us would have done it differently, but this is the way God did it.

Q: What about such statements as: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," (Matt. 5:18) and "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)?

A: Jesus did not say that not a jot or tittle would pass from the law till every tiniest part had been copied perfectly. What He said was that no tiny part of the meaning of the Word of God as given to the original writers would fail to be fulfilled in exactly the way that God intended. Man cannot bread what God has ordained. These verses refer to fulfillment, not to precise copying.

Q: What is your opinion of the New American Standard Bible?

A: No translation is perfect. There are always places at which it is extremely difficult to render a passage into a different language. The KJV was very excellent for its day, but some of its renderings are questionable. _The New American Standard Bible_ was prepared by consecrated Christian scholars and represents an attempt to give an accurate presentation in modern English of the text found in the older manuscripts of the Bible, with occasional notes pointing out differences in late manuscripts. Christians should be grateful for the devoted effort that has gone into this excellent translation.

Q: Should a denomination or association of churches oppose a version solely on the ground that it is not based on the textus receptus?

A: The important thing about a version is its accuracy in translating the text of the Bible. The KJV was greatly used of God for 300 years until much of its language became quite archaic, as the English language changed. It is foolish to ask young people to learn the language of 300 years ago in order to read the Bible. Even mature Christians do not know what is meant by such phrases as "we do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1), and "though shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Ps. 5:6). God's people need an accurate translation in the language of today. This is extremely vital. It is wrong to ask Christians to oppose a translation because it tries to follow the ancient manuscripts rather than a text based largely on Erasmus' edition. To do so is to make an idol of the textus receptus, or of the King James Version. God does not want His people to be idolaters!

[Guest oceanssong]

"Okay.. I can't resist.... So, the NASB and ASV I was alwasy told were translations from the KJV into modern versions... so techinically, isn't this an example of "depending on a translator for their spin"? Especially considering that the KJV was used from at least 250 A.D. to the mid 1800s as the widely accepted text? I dotn know, just a thought..."

I had to laugh when I read this response! How could the KJV have been around in 250AD? King James lived in the late 1500's to early 1600's; the Bible that bears His name was originally published in 1611, and caused a huge uproar among the Puritans and Pilgrims because they believed it cast too favorable a light on King James himself (who, by the way, was a bisexual drunk; if most KJV-only people knew that, they might not be so adamant about it). It's actually gone through several revisions over the years, and the one most commonly used now isn't the same as the 1611 version. (You can actually buy a copy of the 1611 edition, but I wouldn't recommend it. Not only was the language different, but so was the writing itself, and it's very difficult to read.)

I used to work in a Christian bookstore, and I've heard all the excuses about why and how the KJV is the only true Bible in existence -- right down to, "If it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me." I've got news for you: Paul never spoke Elizabethan English! (For that matter, he never spoke American English, either.) Some people can get so hung up on that, even going so far as to say that if you don't use the King James, you're going to hell. (Well, if my salvation depended on the Bible translation I use, then what did Jesus die for? And what about all those godly people -- including Paul and the rest of the apostles and all those marytrs over all those centuries before the KJV was published? I guess they died in vain. And what about Jesus? Jesus Himself never even had a KJV Bible!) There was once a woman in the store whose teenage daughter was BEGGING her mom for a New King James Bible because it was easier to understand than the regular KJV, and her mother refused, saying, "You understand more than you think you do." I wanted to take that woman by the shoulders and shake her and say, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???" My boys (who were also teens at the time) had access to numerous translations, and I would have given almost anything for them to read even one of them!

There's no such thing as "an original Bible"; everything we have is a translation. Even the original texts don't exist anymore -- not even the oldest ones we have available are originals. If you want to read and study the closest thing to the original that we have, then you'll have to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek (which are all dead languages). The bottom line is that the best translation for you is the one you'll read.

oceanssong

[Marnie]

There's no such thing as "an original Bible"; everything we have is a translation. Even the original texts don't exist anymore -- not even the oldest ones we have available are originals. If you want to read and study the closest thing to the original that we have, then you'll have to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek (which are all dead languages). The bottom line is that the best translation for you is the one you'll read.

oceanssong

I agree with 90% of what you said! Kudos for common sense.

[He giveth more grace]

A Blast Against the NIV

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent which was translated from a corrupted, counterfeit text by, at least in some cases, corrupt translators. The NIV is not the Word of God. It is not the Sword of the Spirit. It is a corrupt sword forged in the devil's foundry.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82603122659

An MP3 Sermon on http://www.sermonaudio.com

That's too funny.

Figure of speech here! Shalow Christians.

[Marnie]

A Blast Against the NIV

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent which was translated from a corrupted, counterfeit text by, at least in some cases, corrupt translators. The NIV is not the Word of God. It is not the Sword of the Spirit. It is a corrupt sword forged in the devil's foundry.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82603122659

An MP3 Sermon on http://www.sermonaudio.com

That's too funny.

Figure of speech here! Shalow Christians.

Nobody is shalow, or even shallow. You expressed your opinion, we expressed ours. Sounds like freedom to me, dude.

[Christian]

1Corinthians 1:10

(ASV) Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(DRB) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(ISV) Brothers, I urge all of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions.

(KJVR) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(MKJV) But I exhort you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(RV) Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Oh, if we could only reach this point as brothers and sisters in Christ eh?!

This verse always comes to mind every time I read about this controversy.

(I have also included all translations possible to me and arranged them alphabetically

so as not to cause any further scandal with accusations of bias )

I mean no insult to either camp in this endless debate, please forgive me.

More often than not anyone reading the Bible utilizes cross-referencing/cross-checking/confirmation procedures whether in "human" or "book" form. Any concerns about mis-information or mis-leading text in "inferior" translations can easily be adjusted or corrected and usually are. Additional concerns about the "lone" reader being given the wrong information in a faulty translation carry more weighty concerns that they should not be interpreting the Bible on their own if they are not well versed in it. Use of the Holy Spirit "translator" as an tool for them is faulty also because even a number of "seasoned" Christians left alone with the same translation will arrive at slightly different interpretations quite often(and have). And in this case who is wrong, them, or the Holy Spirit? Them I'm confident. Only meaning that sometimes it may be us leading our convictions more than the Holy Spirit leading us. So whatever benefits the Gospel of Christ, while adhering to it's basic unchangable beliefs, and His nature, can be used for good.

I just feel that in the end God would care whether we read the Bible or not,

more than He would deny us salvation for what translation we used.

I'm not here for debate, I'm entitled to my opinion

I just wanted to shed a different light on the subject.

Blessings to you all

in Christ,

-C-