KJV The Received Text

[Botz]

Not trying to be rude, seriously, but don't we already have a plethora of KJV-only threads?

Hi Cobalt...no rudeness seen, but to me the great thing about the constant repetition of threads is the wonderful way they can evolve differently...this is because new people might get in on the act, and those that feel they have 'done to death' the subject resurfacing, are under not obligation to repeat the agony or the ecstasy...others that have been on the same thread subject numerous times before, have the opportunity to approach things differently...as maybe the Holy Ghost convicted them of certain attitudes last time they 'contended for the faith'.

It is good to hone debating and reasoning skills. It is good to be forced to search the scriptures. It is good to argue, discuss and examine things with brethren and other interested parties. It is good to challenge and be challenged. Repetition is a major way of learning.

[traveller]

Not trying to be rude, seriously, but don't we already have a plethora of KJV-only threads?

Hi Cobalt...no rudeness seen, but to me the great thing about the constant repetition of threads is the wonderful way they can evolve differently...this is because new people might get in on the act, and those that feel they have 'done to death' the subject resurfacing, are under not obligation to repeat the agony or the ecstasy...others that have been on the same thread subject numerous times before, have the opportunity to approach things differently...as maybe the Holy Ghost convicted them of certain attitudes last time they 'contended for the faith'.

It is good to hone debating and reasoning skills. It is good to be forced to search the scriptures. It is good to argue, discuss and examine things with brethren and other interested parties. It is good to challenge and be challenged. Repetition is a major way of learning.

Good point. . .

Besides, you would have missed out on my King's english

[traveller]

Besides, you would have missed out on my King's english

To be perfectly clear, I never felt as if I was "missing" anything. . .

But I almost dropped in a big chunk of Shakespeare's "Henry the 5th" in the form of his St. Crispin's day speech. . .

[Iryssa]

The majority of English speaking persons in the world no longer speak "The King's English."

Some barely speak modern English, for that matter...

[Guest]

Yum!

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts Jeremiah 15:16

[KC02]

You can easily make the case that if your translation leaves out the words "without a cause," it is a false version.

Naaaa. The earlier the manuscript, the more accurate the manuscript should be. The manuscripts the NIV used were much older than the KJV.

You must explain how older manuscripts are less accurate than newer ones. Possible answers:

1) The scribes were in a time warp and they were writing backwards

2) KJV is most accurate because some 21st century Christians insist

I can't think of any more.

The text you are referring to was not in the older manuscripts. It must have been added. So whose version is "false?"

The differences between older and newer manuscripts are quite small. Nothing to get worked up about.

[WillingToDie]

The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.

In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."

A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language.

Consider the following:

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [sTORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]

Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [bible Versions, D.B. Loughran

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.

The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.

First of all, while the Byzantine family of texts are indeed the most numerous, they are generally considered to be inferior the Alexandrian texts. A good translation looks to Byzantine, Alexandrian and...I forget the third family of texts, instead of just using one family of texts.

And I would think that to say that a text before 5th century is using the textus receptus is inaccurate. More likely those are all just texts from the Byzantine family of manuscripts, that correspond closely to what we would now call the TR. Likewise, pointing to texts before the 19th century as using the TR is kind of shifty as an argument, since this was all before significant advances in text criticism that took place in the 19th century.

Naaaa. The earlier the manuscript, the more accurate the manuscript should be. The manuscripts the NIV used were much older than the KJV.

While generally a good rule of thumb, that's not always accurate. Occasionally you'll get a text C, which is a century older than text B, so one would think that Text B would be the one to go with. However, there's the chance that Text C was actually copied from Text A, which was written a century before text B. So it's not always so cut and dry.

[Botz]

By the way, the more I have debated this subject with people who don't think there is any advantage to the KJV Bible, the more they prove to me they are wrong. I had someone quote Matthew 5:22 from one of the modern English Bibles. The first part of it stated that whoever is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgement. In the KJV Bible it states, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement." The words, "without a cause" were left out in the new translation. This makes a huge difference, considering the fact Jesus became angry over the money changers in the temple. He had a cause, so he was innocent of any wrong doing, but according to the new translation this person used, he would have been guilty of sin. That would mean he would not have been a spotless sacrifice when he went to the cross. You can easily make the case that if your translation leaves out the words "without a cause," it is a false version.

The modern English Bible you are quoting from is the 'New American Standard' and while I would agree that in this version there are some words and sentence constructions that could have been clearer and therefore better translated, it does not actually leave out the words 'without a cause' (at least not in my copy)...but in trying to be consistant with their whole approach to the use of early manuscripts and what gives the heaviest weight...they leave the words out in the actual verse..BUT put a note by them which says...SOME MSS INSERT HERE; 'WITHOUT CAUSE'. So overall in the light of the difficulties in translating, and the smorgasbord of manuscripts and fragments available...I (me personally) think this is as honest a way of translating as possible. They were constrained by their consistancy.

I am glad you love the King James Bible...so do I , and so do many people.

[adimus]

The KJV is a human translation like all translations.

Since 1611, there has been a lot more information discovered to work with that help us translate the Bible into modern vernacular. The KJV is outdated.

If you go to the bush in Africa, or to any other country where they do not speak or read English (let alone 17th century English), the gospel is the power of God, not any certain translation of the Bible. Those people will never read a KJV. No one before 1611 ever read the KJV either and God had raised up many prophets and apostles who did fine without it.

This KJV only teaching is demonic.

It puffs up.

It keeps the Bible from being more easily read and understood.

It makes the Bible out to be an extrememly "religious" book.

It makes the Bible appear to be a dated book that is irrelevant for real life.

It dishonestly ignores the weaknesses and errors of the KJV. Its leaders are proven to be liars, plagerizers, and manipulators.

[Guest HIS girl]

"Where is thy place? By Him that made me, I wot never where thou dwellest, nor know I thee, knight, thy court, nor thy name. But teach me truly all that pertaineth thereto, and tell me thy name, and I shall use all my wit to win my way thither, and that I swear thee for sooth, and by my sure troth."

It will suffice in the new year, if I tell thee truly when I have received the blow at thy hand. Then it is that I will quickly tell thee of my house, my home, and my name. Then mayest thou ask my faring, and hold the covenant, and if I say nothing at all, then will it speed thee better, for thou mayest linger in thy land and seek to fare no farther in search of such a sight.

Help.

Please.