@infinit468 Not remotely. The Textus Receptus didn't come into existence until Desiridius Erasmus in the late 1500s AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from a couple hundred years BC up to a few hundred years AD.
TR cant represent true majority greek text tradition.because erasmus used late byzantine minuscule mss and 1caesarean ms,also latin vulgate.he changed greek text using latin vulgate.latin vulgate is the revised text from old latin mss.so how can he changed the word of God, even some text is not even in original greek text? no bible translation is PERFECT because in any language translated to other language will lose word order,meaning,and so on.
Erasmus 1,2,3,4,5, stephanus 1550,bezas' 1598,Elzevir editions,complutensian polyglot is all diffrent one to another they are not word for word same as textus receptus people claim.even Tyndales new testament is diffrent if you compare to king james bible.because tyndale used erasmus 2nd and 3rd edition,king james translators used many diffrent editions prior to 1609.1550 stephanus TR dont have luke 17:36 but bezas' edition,elzevir edition have this verse.how can you explain this?
As a long time KJVO advocate I cannot say I disagree and think some are leaving the KJVO for this reason including Bob Jones University and other Baptist schools. For myself am falling into a more Majority Text view from KJVO and have issues with modern versions but beginning to understand most often what your view of salvation is a more corrupting influance i.e. Arminian bad, Calvinism good as opposed to the KJV or whatever bible you choose to read
On a different note a huge school-Hyles Anderson basically told their students to stop discussing this as I Think when Hyles gave Riplinger an honorary doctrate(despite not abvle to even get a Masters at this scvhool and most professors have only a bachelors degree from that school) I think the new pastor and president figured out Riplinger no differance from Ruckman and from my understanding will teach bible languages
I agree and think this cancer has gone to stage four within the last 100 years and the introduction of hundreds of english translations as 'Holy Bible'...I'm sticking with the authorized version.
Strong's Numbers makes it perfectly clear that the KJV is not as accurate as you've probably been led to believe.
If you want a translation that is closer to the original text, try Young's Literal. He did not translate the Hebrew verb "Nathan" 67 different ways like the KJV!
If people were honest, they would seek the truth, whether or not it honored their "sacred calves". Worship God, not the translation. Honest seeking is the answer.
In regard to there being time of days before the existance of the sun and moon: The Holy Spirit hovered over the earth. It was a light source like God was a light source for the Jews in the wilderness. Beyond this discussion - time is a derivative. Its relative to at least light, gravitation, and expansion (movement). How relative is mass to other mass in regards to interaction and distance? All mass is related no matter how far away due to cause and effect. Time is therefore not a constant
Hey, you believe in Evolution and that we came from a rock, which made a primordial soup, which made life somehow. I believe god engineered man compatible with the earth we live in. We were made of clay and lo and behold all creation is biodegradable. All you want to do is argue with everything, but you couldnt win a debate and no one wants to bother debating you anyway. Go AWAY!
Did Adam wait for primordial soup in the engineering of Eve? Things were done near instantaneously. Either God is real with real working power or its a cartoon. You can't have evolution taged on to God creating. We have two completely opposing paradigms. From all my study I've discovered that science is hostile to the theory of evolution.
Even if your arguement is right its a moot point. God created Eve without the use of deep time (milllions or more years). This is a very good example for a literal 6 day creation scheme. Jesus also created eyes from clay. He also used saliva. Interesting to note - saliva contains DNA.
Isaiah 40:22: The profile view of earth is a circle from the vantage point of the person who "sits above." Consider context.
Dan 4:10: This was a "vision," not a description of physical reality. Consider context.
Mat 4:8: Human eyes cannot see distant kingdoms even IF the earth were flat. This is Satan and Jesus - they have a supernatural revelation. Revelations happen on mountains in the Bible.
Rev 1:7: In an age with TV's, this is possible even with a spherical earth.
SUN REVOLVES AROUND EARTH: The Bible often says "the sun comes up" and "the sun goes down", Ecclesiastes 1:5 It says "the sun stood still" and "the shadow of the sun moved back ten degrees" and then it says THAT means the sun went up by ten degrees. 2 Kings 20:9 - 11 It says Joshua said... "O sun, stand still over Gibeon..." The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Joshua 10:12, 13 Oh, and then Psalm 19:4-6 describes the sun's circuit.
HUMANS MADE FROM DIRT: Genesis 2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground Genesis 3:19 "..you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return. Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20 man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man came from the dust of the earth
The story goes like this: God makes Adam and then god makes plants and then god takes Adam and plunks him down, will he, nil he, in the middle of this "garden." And God thought he looked a bit lonely so he made all these animals and brought them to Adam to see if he'd like one for a wife. (!) But Adam wasn't satisfied with a mercat or a Komodo dragon so finally god made Eve and they all... Genesis chapter 2. Of course, chapter 1 does list a different sequence...
"Animals appeared in day six with man" Genesis chapter 1 Verse 21- God made the birds V 25- God made the wild animals V 27- God created man in his own image.. male and female he created them Now chapter 2 V7- God made man from the dust of the ground V19- God made ALL the beasts V22- God made a woman from the man's rib (because he didn't want to marry an aardvark or a zebra) It's a direct contradiction. They cannot both be true.
Chapter one tells of the creation of earth life and man, Chapter two is a continuation of the story, and tells what happened (in the garden). 2:8
After God created Adam and placed him in the garden. God created one more of every animal so Adam could name them, etc... And to make Adam a witness of the Lords creative power. Every argument I've seen you raise are those only an individual ignorant of scripture could possibly have the nerve to stand behind.
To say that any version of stories told in any of the new testiment are not directly linked to the editited catholic pagan version is hard for me to swallow.
What about errors in the KJV that carried over from the Vulgate... like only begotten... MonoGenes... or whosoever... pas ho pisteo... you see there are many weak translations of words in KJV. (that is only a couple)
IT IS STILL ONE OF THE BEST
but not perfect. I do believe that TR is the way to go though.
Imagine, can you show me some examples of internal inconsistancy, historical erroers, etc, email them to me, and please dont get it off some website....bcuz I know thats probably where u get it from and I know that you havent read the Bible.
How about these? (I don't do private messaging) Genesis 1 and 2 give contrary sequences of creation. Who prompted David to take a census, God or Satan? Did Judas or priests purchase Potter's field? How did Judas die? Did Jesus suck on a sponge while crucified? What colour robe was out on Jesus? Purple or scarlet? Which of seven choices were Jesus' last words? Who visited the tomb Easter morning? Who was Jesus' paternal granpa? Heli or Jacob?
' Why are there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? (Examples: Matt 26:26, "Many Greek copies have ," Luke 10:22, "Many ancient copies add these words ," Luke 17:36, "These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies," Acts 25:6, "Or as some copies read, ".
These marginal notes compared the differences among the various editions of the Textus Receptus
Do you know what the Textus Receptus is, can you identify a single Textus Receptus, if not, why not?
Edward, I pray that the Lord will truly take you out of the idolatry of KJV onlyism as he did me, and as he is making me holy that he also make you holy in Him. I am not perfect, I still commit sin against God Edward, yet he disciplines me as a Father does to his children, God grants me repentance and faith and I am growing in Him. He makes me have peace with GOD, AMEN!! WOW praise JESUS:)
Between the first two (B and a) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. ..
'God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Perhaps there is here an intimation that this would be most likely to be done by those who professed to be Christians, and who supposed that their names were in the book of life. In fact, most of the corruptions of the sacred Scriptures have been attempted by those who have professed some form of Christianity'
In Rev.16:5, there is Gr. support for their use of 'O Lord' (296,2049)
As for 'shalt be' here the Trans. compared other translations (see the preface which you are so eager to quote) and came to the correct conclusion. That same reading 'shalt be' is still in the NKJ, KJ21, KJ2000 and YLT. Barnes in his commentary had no problem with the verse. In fact , he make an interesting comment regarding Rev.22:19.
What is your standard in knowing the truth of what the manuscripts said? Do you work backwords(which is by the way a logical fallacy) and read into the manuscripts whats in the KJV? OR Should you go from the Manuscripts to see if it matches the KJV? Since 100% Manuscripts do not contain those readings at all and for some cases in the KJV 99.9% of all Manuscripts do not contain their readings? THe KJV only position cannot be defended by any scholarship.Rev 22:19 and Luke 2:22 NO MANUSCRIPTS.
I've never know a KJV-only person who could speak another language. If they could they would realize the (forgive the term) evolution of language and realize how weak their position is. I believe the KJV is the most accurate and best English-language version! But to say that the "word of God" is bound to a certain translation is ridiculous!
I agree, the KJV is from single manuscripts of a limited knowledge of textual criticism from the 17th century, with limited scholarship.
The NIV, NASB, and ESV are from a much higher knowledge of textual criticism, better knowledge of the original languages, and much better manuscripts, with rescent discoveries from the Dead Sea, plus more New Testament manuscripts. I downloaded a Greek-English program KJV to the Textus receptus and the words used and it doesnt even match the Greek perfectly.
The KJB is not from 'single manuscripts' it's NT is from various editions of the Textus Receptus. Nothing found has done anything to undermine the KJB. In fact, the recent discoveries have led the N/A 27th edit. to put back in hundreds of TR readings.
Which TR did you download? The KJB translators used several TR editions, including Beza's 5th edition.
Actually, the TR called "Scrivener's Textus Receptus" which is made by late Dr.Scrivener, it is the Greek text used for the KJV Bible, he reconstructed it, what Greek the KJV translators used.
And if you will note that Scrivener assumed that Beza 5th edit.was the primary text and that in about 190 places it deviates from Beza. So, there is no one exact TR edition that the KJB was translated from.
'KJB defenders' don't say that the word of God is only in English. The word of God is in many other languages as well, and those Bibles come from the same textual source that the KJB does.
Sorry, no text is 100% the same as the KJV not even the Textus Receptus from where it originates. If you knew Greek you would be shocked at KJV onlyists. The original Bible is in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. As Dr. James White said "The New Testament is like a jigsaw puzzle, we have about 1010/1000 puzzle pieces, and the task is taking out the extra". We can find the original text by textual criticism. Please do not get discouraged, we have the Bible, watch the first vid in my favourites.
Sorry, but texts are constructed from the various MSS and the TR represents a particular text type. The various editions vary among themselves in some places.
I do know Greek and I read my entire Gr. NT every month.
Yes, we have the Bible, and it is the KJB. in English. The task isn't taking out the 'extra' (W/H theory that the shorter reading is preferred) he task is getting the CORRECT reading, which is often the fuller reading (TR)
Yes, I agree, the texts were constructed from various MSS, and Scrivener reconstructed what texts the KJV translators used in the KJV, his Greek reconstructed text lines up perfectly with the words used in the KJV, it is a fact.This is why the Trinitarian Bible Society(KJV Onlyists) know that the KJV cannot be perfect, because they know Greek and see that the KJV is not even a perfect translation of that Textus Receptus. Unless you want to say that the KJV is a new revelation...which is wrong.
No, the KJB is perfect. Which TR are you talking about? The TR has a number of editions and the translators picked the best reading from them all. Also, when the reading was not a majority text reading they chose the correct reading from the other translations, including the Old Latin. So, the KJB is a perfect translation of the extant TR editions.
Look up Scriveners Textus Receptus even in KJV only websites, they know that it is the text of the KJV. Scrivener traced their use of words from the various Textus Receptus' and reconstructed the Greek text of the KJV, this is a fact.
I have the work right in front of me and there are 190 places where it deviates from the Beza Text and he has notes in the back of it. So, the KJB is all TR, but it isn't all one edition of the TR.
'Dr. Frederick H.A. Scriverner listed the following places where the KJB did not follow the Greek Text of Theodore Beza (1598). The King James translators worked from various personal documents....(Where the KJB leaves the Greek Text of Beza 1598, DiVietro, pg.1)
I know that the KJV translators used various editions of the Textus Receptus, I am aware of that. But Biblical faith is not faith in something that is indefencable, and that is the core of KJV onlyism. Please watch some of Dr Whites videos on the subject, I will send it to you. Jesus is LORD amen, and he has given me the gift of faith in Him, and I praise my Lord for granting me life. KJV onlyism limits the defence of the Gospel my friend, it does not help in anything, especially for the Bible.
But when I was a KJV only, I believed in a number of false doctrines, the false doctrines just kept piling up. I believed in Arminianism and other sub-biblical concepts of Salvation,etc. And trust me, I had those same emotional feelings when I 'defended' the KJV also, do not confuse emotion with the working of the Spirit. God broke me and showed me his truth of textual criticism.
I never said that the KJV teaches false doctrine, but KJV onlyism is a false doctrine, that is what I was saying.
See the arguments against the NIV? Luke 23:42 is suppose to be an argument? As if the word "Lord" there changes the meaning of the text?Does the NIV present Jesus as Lord all over the place elsewhere? YES, no doctrine is changed by any Bible translation, they are all of God. But according to textual criticism, the word Lord doesn't belong there.
No, those who advocate another bible translation are teaching a false doctrine since they are leading people away from the true word of God.
Yes, the removal of the word 'lord' does change the meaning, since that is the heresy of Adoptionism.
'In the Alexanderian text this prayer has been tampered with by the docetists, who believed that the divine 'Christ' returned to heaven just before the crucifixion, leaving only the human Jesus to suffer and die (KJV defended, Edward Hills, pg.136)
We don't just have one Alexandrian text, there are multiple lines of transmission, (thus how come all of the lines which come from different places and from different scribes) all do not have the word Lord in it? Because it was not tampered with by any
The KJV translators then are false teachers teaching false doctrine since they said that a varietie(Many) translations of the Scriptures are profitable for the word of God, not just one.
Well, I disagree, the KJV translators were men of God.
The Alexandrian text type is like the TR text-type, it has a number of various editions put out, but essentially the agree with one another. The Alexanderian text is noted for being tampered with by heretics such as Origen and that is why it contains gnostic readings.
The KJV did not use any Critical Text as they were found in the Douey-Rheims and kept to the various editions of the pure TR.
When I say that KJV onlyism cannot be defended, I mean it, because it is a lie. Alexandrian text is tampered by Origen?? That is pure fiction! Most of the Manuscripts are not even when Origen lived, and they are not just from one place, but all around Egypt. No, the KJV used Printed Texts that were available to them at the time(The Textus Receptus Editions, Beza, Erasmus, etc) because most of the people were alrealy fimiliar with them, not because they rejected a 'text' type.
'Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria tht the text in question was fabricated...there is a marked resembalence between the peculiar readings of B/Aleph and the two Egyptian Versions,-the Boharic or version of Lower Egypt especially...no one can fail to have been struck by the evident sympathy between Origen...and the text in question....Alexanderia contributed largely to our Textual troubles (Burgon, TT, pg.234-35)
Agree. The Oldest Manuscripts were the ones with the most textual variations because the copies were not done by professional scribes, but people who just wanted to make a copy, whereas the Byzantine were done largely by professiona scribes. Origen could NOT have tamered with any Alexandrian text whatsoever because these texts were not all found in one library, but all around Egypt, if you want to believe this, it is pure fiction, which is the only apologetic defence of KJV onlyists:Fiction.
I can make the same argument against the Textus Receptus.
Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? It is clear that it is not original, yet it is in the Textus Receptus and now in the KJV. Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? Has this been tampered with? If you were consistant you would say yes, but since you arent...
First, the TR is not always majority Gr. texts. Sometimes it relies on other sources like the old Latin,(which contains 2nd century readings and church fathers,
E. Hills stated that there was Gr. evidence for the reading in 'E' and 431 and Peshitta.
As for Rev.22:19, 'book of life' is in ALL pre-1611 editions from Tyndale. It is in the modern edit. of KJ2000 and the YLT (scroll instead of 'Book')
So, no one was tampering with anything, they got the correct reading from various sources.
Edawrd, the TR has verses that arent supported in ANY Green manuscritps at all, especially the text of the KJV. Please explain why I should use the TR's readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5 when all Greek Manuscripts, Alexandrian and Byzantine, do not have the text that the Textus Receptus or KJV has in those verses?
Why should I accept the textual emendation of Beza on those verse? NO Greek Manuscript says "book of life", why do KJV only people remain inconsistant, ask yourself that?
Gr. support is found in #76 and a few other Gr. cursives. Interesting that the NKJ kept 'her' in their reading, without a fn. The Geneva has 'Mary' as well. The KJB is correct since it is referring to Lev. 12 and only the woman is mentioned.
Yes, there are Gr. Mss which say 'book of life', 296, 2049, and 2067(mg).
Hoskier believes that Erasmus got that reading from a Gr. Mss, not the vulgate.
By the way, the reading Rev.22:19 'book of life' is also found in the NKJ, KJ21 and the Spainish Reina-Valera, as well as earlier mentioned, the KJ2000 and YLT (scrolls)
Those King James 'wannabes' change other readings, so their keeping 'book of life' is, I believe, significant.
I pray that the Lord may help you understand textual critiicism, and that it does not put an end to the Christian faith, but its very foundation, how God preserved his word. The question is not "IF" God preserved his word, the question is "HOW" he did it. Now thats a fumdamental difference between KJV Onlyism and textual criticism. Why a 17th century Anglican translation though, which is translated from error-ridden Textus Receptus of the Renaissance?
I pray that God will open your eyes to the fact that you are being deceived. Modern Textual criticism believes that there is no real Bible, only different translations of various texts. The correct view of Textual criticism is that it served it purpose. That those in the 17th century believed that God did preserve his words,
The W.M. Confession believed the Hebrew and Greek texts they had were pure.
'and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages'
It should be noted that the KJV translators didn't even accept the Quraninc Infallablity that KJV translators have adopted in the text of the Bible. There cant be any variations in any manuscripts so it must not be from GOD the Muslims say, and the KJV people do the same. If you are really sure about the text of the KJV, why not visit James White's website and talk to him on his Radio Show, and let us see if the KJV can be defended. KJV onlyism limits the defence of the Gospel!
Frankly, I am not concernec with what the KJB believed about their own translation. They state very clearly that it's intent was to make one PRINCIPLE good one out of many good ones. And they believed they made an EXACT translation. In those two views, they were correct. They made one principle, exact translation which God blessed and ended all need for any further English translations. It is the anti-KJB zealots who are causing the confusion, we have a Bible, you don't.
But the KJV translators made that translation... what you mean your not conccerned. KJV only people 1) ignore historical context 2) Ignore the kJV translators 3) Ignore all of textual transmission.
If you ignore the KJV transltors, how can you even say with any respect for truth, that the KJV is inpired? who told you? Please don't confuse emotions with the working of the Spirit, thats what it was for me, pure emotions, nothing else. I thought "If I leave KJV I leave Scritpure", so wrong.
No, what we ignore are people who reject the Bible that God gave them. And you ignore the fact that the translators said that their intention was to make a 'principle one' from many good ones.
Do you know what the word 'principle' means?
'FIRST IN RANK, IMPORTANCE'
That was the GOAL of the translators, that their translation would be the FIRST IN RANK of all the translations that became before them. So, stop ignoring the intention of the translators. Their work is STILL the PRINICPLE one
How do you know that God gave that Bible? Who told you, can you prove it, because the evidence is certainly against it. I have no problem with the KJV, it is a good translation and I would not object to reading it, i have the 1611. But my problem is when some Chrsitian who knows nothing about how he even got the KJV tells me that it is the only Bible.
I agree, and the KJV is a principal translation compared to the earlier versions. It is a revision of the Bishops Bible,etc. But now, no.
I know that God gave us the KJB by the FRUIT it has born. And what version do you think has supplanted it as the principle translation?
Well, I know how we got the KJB and I know that 'it's equal will never be seen again'. And that was said by Alister Mcgrath, who was editor of the NIV theme bible, in his work,' the King James Bible, how it changed a language, a culture and a Nation'.
There is only one Bible for the English speaking people, the AV1611.
They didn't know that it would be God's final translation, wow! Can you prove this? Why is it Gods final english translation, can you give an adequate answer?
Actually, it has nothing to do with dead churches, it has soemthing to do with the rise of the common era, the post-modernism and athiesm, charles darwin and others, not with "Alexandrian manuscripts" lol.
Go get Youngs Literal Translation which is a transltionn of the TR, and compare it to KJV, lets see if the KJV is perfect?
No, why would I think YLT is a better translation then the KJB?
How do I know that it is God's final translation? Because the quality of men brought togehter was unique. There will never be another Milton, Shakespere, Chaucer, Declaration of Independence, another American Constitution, another Gettysburg address, all the fruit of men who read the KJB, and never another KJB.
Now run along and read your mess of pottage, the NASB/NIV and stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
Young's UNliteral translation is a PIECE OF GARBAGE! It mistranslates "church" to "assembly" in matthew 16:18. Christ WAS building his CHURCH, not an assembly... It also says that peter is A rock, no no no! thou art PETROS (small rock) and upon PETRA (meaning CHRIST) does the CHUCH be built. Talk about changing the Words of God.
Young's literal translation copies KJV in hebrews 11:1. Shows how it is just a watered-down REWRITE of the KJV.
Christkeep, the word in Greek for church means ASSEMBLY, thats who the church is in the New Testament- the assembly of believers. Like I said, if you knew greek, you would see the foolishness of KJV onlyism.
No Christkeep, YLT is a translation from the EXACT same Textus Receptus as is the KJV, when you look at the differences between the KJV and the YLT, realize that the YLT is the word for word translation of the same text, the fact that you call it a piece of garbage is very silly.
The YLT is no more an exact translation of the TR text used in the KJB then is Berry's interliner. The KJB is the exact translation of the correct text. You don't know Greek and you don't know what you are talking about.
My brother, you know Greek you say, and you cant see that the KJV is not a perfect translation? WOW.
Even the Trinitarian Bible Soceity is not ignorant enough to say that the KJV is a perfect translation becaues they know Greek, which is why even though they are KJV only, they approve the "TR", which is a limited printed text with limited textual study. The Na27 and UBS4 are the best printed texts that we have.
If you knew Greek you would know what great translators the KJB translators. The TBS doesn't have a problem with the Greek translations, they have an issue with some of the verses, that they believe aren't Majority text.
The Na27/ubs4 are junk. I have NA 26 and UBS3. Not much difference. But the one thing that the Na26 did do was add back hundreds of TR readings that the Na25 had rejected.
When you say TR, what do you mean? There is no edition of the TR that can be called one defenite TR, therefore, even when you say TR, it is an inconsistant argument to somehow prove the reliablity of the Na27.
Because the YLT renders it literally, and if you were to compare it, it is not the same as the KJV AT ALL. This shows you that even in the TR, dynamic equivalence translators differ from literal ones, now thats a good argument against the KJV.
The KJV translators didn't LIMIT themselves to the T.R. - they used other translations (like the geneva and bishops) as aide. King James' rules he set forth were to ensure everything was translated correctly or the most accurate. New translations garble everything; King James didn't have any agendas to distort the Bible - and he knew more about the original texts than most people today: read his Daemonologie, Basilikon Doron, or meditation on Revelation/Matthew.
2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, ONE PRINCIPLE good one, not justly to be EXCEPTED AGAINST; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark....through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see#15
[The purpose of the translators, with their number, furniture, care, etc.]
If you accept their words here, read just 1 page further and they get into textual criticism and how it applies to the KJV(which I already sent you on email) if you are really serious in studying the truth.
Please get a 1611 KJV facsimile for $19.99 at Christianbook com and read the preface on your own, and you will see that the KJV only websites abuse and falsly misrepresent the KJV translators words.
May the Lord Jesus be with you and that you finally reject doctrines of men, amen.
And why do you reject the intention that they had to create a 'principle translation'
Yes, they used 'textual criticism' but their 'textual criticism' was not like the modern kind. It believed that God had preserved His words in their pure form in the Received text. And thus, they FINISHED the need for textual criticism by giving us a perfect translation.
May God open your eyes to the deception you are under by false teachers.
Thats not what the KJV translators believed, its actually the opposite, they said that God has left some things questionable, which is true in textual criticism. They said that their translation is not perfect also. I was under deception by false teachers, and I dont want to be wrong, if you are right then I would be able to prove it right, but the TR has mistakes in it.. its well known and cannot be defended at all.
Circular arguments is all I see from KJV onlyism...JESUS IS LORD AMEN.
'through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see'
The translators said that God's hand was on their translation. They believed they were making one more EXACT translation of God's words. Try reading what the translators actually said.
The TR does have differences in it, but the KJB translators were able to always choose the correct reading. You are rejecting God's words, so save the phony piety.
YEs the good hand is upon them, so it was on Tyndale and all the other ones, they give glory to God as we always should, because that work is not ours but for the glory of God and for his people. But what is not there is "This translation is perfect!!!" they said the opposite, they said right after saying about the 'principal translation' that they agree wtih textual criticism, and after that they said to the reader "dont be bothered if we used certain translations of a word..etc.
Where does Matthew say that his work is inspired? Where does Luke? John? Just because men don't know their work is going to be usec by God doesn't mean it isn't.
And they got the TEXT correct and the marginal notes were removed and NOT MISSED by anyone. No one cares what a word MIGHT be, they are only care what it IS. And the IS is found in the TEXT.
But Matthew doesn't deny it. The KJV translators do: now thats a problem. We as Christians do not look at what is inspired by looking for a signiture by Matthew lol, we know something is scripture by it being god breathed and by its recognition from the people of God, thus the cannon came into being.
Edward, don't get too kooky, the apostles DID know they were inspired okay, you can easily test that with many verses, especially Paul's writings: Paul writes that he was taught by GOD and not of men (I'm SURE if I was taught personally by God I'd be inspired) - it is blasphemy to say WORD of God wasn't inspired nor the people who wrote it!
But, people who smash the KJV must REALIZE that King James set forth correct biblical guidelines (unlike the NIV board); hence it beats ALL translations.
Why does the KJV set forth better biblical guidlines than the NIV translators? The NIV translators didnt limit themselves to the Masoretic text, they used the Dead Sea Scroles also, plus the manuscript evidence.
The fact is, the KJV is translated in a time where limited textual study was done, limited knowledge of variants were there, and limited knowledge of textual criticism. The fact is, the KJV translators denied inspiration and accepted textual criticism-why should I become a KJV only?
None of those have advanced the knowledge of anything. The correct texts to use are the MT/TR. The KJB translators believed they were translating the word of God and that they had that word. Modern textual criticism believes that the Bible should be seen as just another ancient book that God had nothing to do with preserving, that God gave the originals but couldn't preserve them well enough to get them into a book. The two views on Textual criticism are totally different.
Which TR edward, is the correct text? Can you identify the TR, and if not, why not?
Ofcourse the KJB translators believed they were translating the word of God,b ut your heart has become so hardened in your own conclusions edward, that you simply refuse to listen to anything I say, even when I showed you in the words of the KJV translators, that they beleived even if the translator doesnt perfectly translate the word of God(which they believed was them) it is still the word of God.
'Dr. Hills believed the authorized KJB was not merely an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus, he believed it was an independent variety of the Textus Receptus....
Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus."
Edward that is not what modern textual critics believe, they believe in the tanacity of the text- that all readings(even if a scribe mispells a word) remains in the manuscript tradition, which must also mean that all(original) readings are still there also, which is the job of believing textual scholars to study, of which by Gods grace, I pray he raises up.
Waites assertion is ridicilous ,simply because hes judging todays textual criticms with the less knowledgable one in the 17th century.
The modern textual critic believes that at least 5% of the text is doubtful,so they believe that God wasn't able to preserve ALL of his word. The Critical Text is approx. 5,000 words LESS then the TR.
The 17th century got it right, the modern critics got it wrong and are using the wrong text (Alexanderian) as the basis for their readings.
The dead sea scrolls were edited by the papacy, you can search for photos of it (or personally ask me to give you some). Perhaps it wasn't the best thing to limit the hebrew texts; but the Jews preserved them quite well, and we still have Isaiah's original scroll, so, no worries with translating there.
The KJV was NOT translated in a time of "limited" textual study, Edward de Vere was correcting his Geneva Bible which shows they had vast scriptures available.
WHAT!!!? Dead Sea edited by PAPACY? Ridiculous! This is the kind of argumentation we hear from KJV onlyism, it is expected.
The facts are right there, and to dodge them the KJV onlyists have to work backwords from the KJV and look at the manuscripts through the lens of the KJV, in the same as the Muslims look at it thorough the Quran, and Mormons look at it through the Book of Mormon. Do you see any similiarities between these world views?
They not knowing doesn't mean it wasn't inspired. What WRITINGS made it into the Canon was due to the church RECOGINZING what was written was indeed inspired, as opposed to other works that were written by those same men which didn't make it into the Canon. So what was orginally written FOR the Canon as indeed inspired because God breathed life into what was written. And the early church recognized those Books as being alive and therefore Scripture.
that is a very good point (looking at the church as a whole opposed to individuals). The apostles did know they were writing for God - because God told them what to write - but just the same, God used King James to translate the Bible. King James DID know he was doing God's service - just as the apostles did.
No doubt that the Apostles knew what they spoke and wrote was from God, but they didn't know what was going to make it into the Canon. It seems that Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinithians, yet only two made it into the Canon. Now if that letter would be found, it still would not be Canonical simply because the NT Canon was closed in the 1st century by that generation who recognized the Canon.
Likewise, the issue of the AV1611 was finished by the 17th church which reconized it was God's words
You see what KJV onlyism leads to edward, like I said, I was in false doctrine when I was a KJV only and the attacks against the Bible kept piling up- this shows with your attack on the cannon of scripture right now.
The Apostles didn't know what they were writing was going to be in the Canon. 2Tim.3:16 says all Scripture is given by Inspiration, not that everything an Apostle wrote was scripture. Peter is referring to Paul's writings, not his own. Nothing in 1Cor.14:37 says that Paul knows that what he is writing is going into the Canon, only that he writing with the authority of the Apostle. You need to learn to read English, not worry about Greek!
Edward, the fruit of KJV onlyism is clearly being seen, you deny that Peter is inspired? You deny that any of the Books of the New Testament are inspired or do you think that there should be more added into the cannon? Edward my friend, I am shocked at your answers and your denial of the Scriptures, now thats KJV onlyism for you, and thats what it is going to continue to do to you.
James White was right, you hear more about the KJV from KJV onlyists than about Christ, is this wrong?
You clearIy can' t read simply English. I said, the writers of the NT I named didn't KNOW THEY were writing inspired scripture and not even thing they wrote made it into the Canon.
And how do we know that we have the right books of the Canon? By FAITH. It was the 1st century Church that recognized the books and the Church as agreed with that decision. And we recognize the correct WORDS as well.
White isn't correct on anything and you are deceived
How do u know that they didnt know they were writing inspired Scripture, Paul clearly said that he knew, why are other NT writes any different?
I agree that it was the church that recognized it, but I disagree with your assrrtion.
Or you are decieved, which was predicted by Paul?
One of us is decieved, and if you can prove that I am, then I am, if you cannot, then I am not. However, if I can show you from the KJV translators that you are, and its proof, why aren't you decieved?
Well, you can disagree all you want the FACT is that those I named who wrote scripture did not say they were writing scripture, so your argument that the KJB isn't scripture because the translators didn't say it was falls apart.
The one who is deceived is you. What the KJB translators said about anything is not an issue about the quality of their work and to keep harping on it like it is,is simply nonsense.
You will note that Paul makes reference to what the Lord explictly commanded in 1Cor.7:10, ('yet not I, but the Lord) so when Paul states that he is speaking, not the Lord, he is simply saying this was not explictly commanded by the Lord, not that it was simply Paul's opinion.
Reading scripture correctly, means reading it in CONTEXT.
And that must be taken in context with what he said earlier when he said that it wasn't he speaking but the Lord (1Cor.7:10) so both statements go together and that is why it was stated that way, so you would see that Christ commented on one issue, but not the other. Paul wasn't saying that what he was saying wasn't from God.
That is what the passage is saying when read in its correct context.
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord - As if he had said: For what I have already spoken I have the testimony of the Lord by Moses, and of my own Lord and Master, Christ; but for the directions which I am now about to give there is no written testimony, and I deliver them now for the first time. These words do not intimate that the apostle was not now under the influences of the Divine Spirit; but, that there was nothing in the sacred writings which bore directly on this point.
Yes Imagine, he was not denying inspiration- yet he wrote by the authority of an apostle and said that the Lord did not specifically tell him such a thing face-to face or in a vision-etc, he spoke according to the his authority as an apostle.
Your pushing a statment in the text that simply isn't there- now thats eisegesis at its best. lol
Perhaps you just aren't letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, but are practicing eisegesis(reading into the text what doesn't belong there). This is the wrong way in studying the Bible. You are suppose to do EXEGESIS to study the Scriptures, to find out what it contextually, historically and gramatically means.
According to Burgon, the fundamental mistake of contemporary N.T. textual critics was they they ignored the unique character of the N.T. text. They would not recognize that they were dealing with a book that was different from all other books, in short, with a Divinely inspired and providently preserved Book:...These latter scholars followed a naturalistic method, taking particular pride in handling the text of the N.T. just as they would the text of any other ancient book'
The original reading is still preserved in the Greek Manuscripts, the task is identifying it:) which is what Textual Scholars do. Therefore, the New Testament is INSPIRED and Authoratative. the Only Word of God=Bible.
I have no problem with the KJV, it is a good translation,especially for the 17th century. But my problem is when people start saying that it is the only Bible. I use to be a KJV only, and I am glad that God took me out of that tradition of man into the truth of textual criticism-it has only strengthened my faith in the Bible and not the opposite.
I was a KJV only & was convinced that the KJV onlyism is false because I read IN the 1611 KJV that the translators agreed with textual criticism.
when ever i think textual criticism i think of this verse
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID??????..............
Christians have never believed in the standard of an infallible set of manuscripts, this has only been newly adopted by KJV onlyists. The Bible is 100% preserved, yes, but the issue is, how did God preserve it? And thats the study of textual criticism, we are able to find the original text through that study. It is no "Yea Hath God said" type of thing, it is a fact of Scripture. The New Testament Quotes from the Septuagint, which itself is a translation of the Hebrew.
"Textual Criticism" is a good thing with regards to fallible things created by man but it is blasphemous when applied to the word of God since the Word of God is not fallible and to imply that it is shows you lack of fath in Jesus Christ who is the Word of God.
Do not mistake me for trying to weaken your faith in the word of God, God forbid, I praise the Lord Jesus, the author of the Scriptures. But Christians should no longer be shilded from the textual variants of the New Testament, we must know them, because the KJV only position cannot be defended by any scholarly merit. Just because God didn't preserve his word your standard doesn't mean that he didn't preserve his word. Jesus is LORD, amen:)!
The KJB translators did do textual work and REJECTED the false text of 'B' found in the Douay-Rheims. They held to the Received Text found in Tyndale and the Geneva Bibles as well as many foreign translations.
Actually, that is completely wrong. They rejected none of the Greek Texts, this is a complete lie made later by KJV onlyists, nowhere will you find in their Letter to the Reader where they "Rejected the text because they thought it was evil". Completely false. Yes, you see, they did textual work to find the original, thats why they put verses in the margin, as they said! Read for yourself the truth! They said "VARIETIE OF TRANSLATION IS PROFITABLE!" Do you use varietie? Or are you KJV only?
They rejected the Douey-Rheims readings which they had right before them when they translated. Those readings contained Critical Text readings from 'B'.
So, yes they did reject the Critical text readings.
And they also said that their purpose was to make out of many good ones, 'ONE principall good one, not justly to be excepted against'
Show me where in their writings they rejected those readings, infact, from the "Translators to the reader" the 1611 KJV translators write that a Bible should always have footnotes in the margins to help the reader, and never dogmatize on uncertain verses(1 jo 5:7) because God was pleased to leave some things questionable. That is what they said, and that is what textual critics believe. SCRIVENER reconstructed that Greek text that the KJV translators used, this is a clear fact, search it up!
The marginal notes were to show difference meaning in the Heb and Gr. words they used. They never appealed to another textual line. Yes, I know Scrivener reconstructed the Gr. text, and he has in his work a number of places where the text leaves Beza and he is unsure of the source of the reading. So, why don't you look it up. I have Scrivener's work.
If you were to read what the KJV translators actually said in the 1611 you would know why they used marginal notes, and wouldn't make up stuff. My brother, I am not trying to shake your faith in the Scripture, God has preserved his word in the Manuscript tradition. The KJV translators would have appealed to other manuscripts if they had access to them, but they didn't have access. The KJV is not perfectly translated from the Receptus, thats why many KJV onlyists say its a NEW REVELATION.
just do your home work.. u dont know nothing about it.. even paul is not a follower of my lord jesus christ..
ZABelladragg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi
check my site
true face of fake muslims
whahahaha
askingyou4life 9 months ago
@infinit468 Not remotely. The Textus Receptus didn't come into existence until Desiridius Erasmus in the late 1500s AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from a couple hundred years BC up to a few hundred years AD.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
Am I the only one irritated at the fact that his guy wont stay with the mike?
I cabt hear half of what he is saying!!!!!
Unwatchable!
Amarx00 1 year ago
TR cant represent true majority greek text tradition.because erasmus used late byzantine minuscule mss and 1caesarean ms,also latin vulgate.he changed greek text using latin vulgate.latin vulgate is the revised text from old latin mss.so how can he changed the word of God, even some text is not even in original greek text? no bible translation is PERFECT because in any language translated to other language will lose word order,meaning,and so on.
Lee7676 1 year ago
Erasmus 1,2,3,4,5, stephanus 1550,bezas' 1598,Elzevir editions,complutensian polyglot is all diffrent one to another they are not word for word same as textus receptus people claim.even Tyndales new testament is diffrent if you compare to king james bible.because tyndale used erasmus 2nd and 3rd edition,king james translators used many diffrent editions prior to 1609.1550 stephanus TR dont have luke 17:36 but bezas' edition,elzevir edition have this verse.how can you explain this?
Lee7676 1 year ago
Why is there so much ANGER in this KJV only controversy?
A leading Minister said that the KJV Only issue is a "cancerous sore on the Body of Christ"
I tend to agree with him.
ThoughtTraveler 2 years ago
As a long time KJVO advocate I cannot say I disagree and think some are leaving the KJVO for this reason including Bob Jones University and other Baptist schools. For myself am falling into a more Majority Text view from KJVO and have issues with modern versions but beginning to understand most often what your view of salvation is a more corrupting influance i.e. Arminian bad, Calvinism good as opposed to the KJV or whatever bible you choose to read
daveme7 2 years ago
On a different note a huge school-Hyles Anderson basically told their students to stop discussing this as I Think when Hyles gave Riplinger an honorary doctrate(despite not abvle to even get a Masters at this scvhool and most professors have only a bachelors degree from that school) I think the new pastor and president figured out Riplinger no differance from Ruckman and from my understanding will teach bible languages
daveme7 2 years ago
@ThoughtTraveler
I agree and think this cancer has gone to stage four within the last 100 years and the introduction of hundreds of english translations as 'Holy Bible'...I'm sticking with the authorized version.
maxtimus 2 years ago 2
@maxtimus
The "authorized" version is not in english!!!
Strong's Numbers makes it perfectly clear that the KJV is not as accurate as you've probably been led to believe.
If you want a translation that is closer to the original text, try Young's Literal. He did not translate the Hebrew verb "Nathan" 67 different ways like the KJV!
If people were honest, they would seek the truth, whether or not it honored their "sacred calves". Worship God, not the translation. Honest seeking is the answer.
MagnusDredd 1 year ago
@MagnusDredd
Please don't get angry at me because I have a final authority that I'm submitted to and you do not.
maxtimus 1 year ago
In regard to there being time of days before the existance of the sun and moon: The Holy Spirit hovered over the earth. It was a light source like God was a light source for the Jews in the wilderness. Beyond this discussion - time is a derivative. Its relative to at least light, gravitation, and expansion (movement). How relative is mass to other mass in regards to interaction and distance? All mass is related no matter how far away due to cause and effect. Time is therefore not a constant
kvtassel 2 years ago
Hey, you believe in Evolution and that we came from a rock, which made a primordial soup, which made life somehow. I believe god engineered man compatible with the earth we live in. We were made of clay and lo and behold all creation is biodegradable. All you want to do is argue with everything, but you couldnt win a debate and no one wants to bother debating you anyway. Go AWAY!
kvtassel 2 years ago 9
Evolution does not disagree with the Bible.
Does that primordial soup NOT appear to be clay?
littleredbirdy 2 years ago
Did Adam wait for primordial soup in the engineering of Eve? Things were done near instantaneously. Either God is real with real working power or its a cartoon. You can't have evolution taged on to God creating. We have two completely opposing paradigms. From all my study I've discovered that science is hostile to the theory of evolution.
kvtassel 2 years ago
Nope. that was a miracle granted by God because at that time Adam was perfect and could get anything he desired.
As for Adam, it makes it clear he came from DUST.
If you think this means the same dust that's on top of your television you're not thinking hard enough.
littleredbirdy 2 years ago
Even if your arguement is right its a moot point. God created Eve without the use of deep time (milllions or more years). This is a very good example for a literal 6 day creation scheme. Jesus also created eyes from clay. He also used saliva. Interesting to note - saliva contains DNA.
kvtassel 2 years ago
You do realize that those days came before the existence of the Sun and the Moon and before the seperation of the Earth from the rest of the Heavens?
How was he counting the days?
littleredbirdy 2 years ago
The Bible says the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
And you're worrying about which VERSION to believe?
Wow.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
The bible says the earth is ROUND.
The bible says the earth revolves around the sun.
Humans are made compatible with the physical rhelm with the divine spirit within.
Satan through an unspecified reptilian creature spoke. (No surprise to christians or hard core satanists for that matter).
Animals appeared in day six with man... God made man (male and female) created he them.
And the quality of scripture being tainted by hostile persons is indeed a concern It is manifest quite easily.
kvtassel 2 years ago 4
FLAT EARTH:
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a CIRCLE.
Daniel 4:10-11a tree that is as tall as the heavens
can be seen from everywhere on the earth
Matthew 4:8 has Jesus viewing the whole earth from a tall mountain.
Revelation 1:7 says every eye will see Jesus coming in the clouds.
Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation all require a flat earth.
Well, either flat or bowl-shaped.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Isaiah 40:22: The profile view of earth is a circle from the vantage point of the person who "sits above." Consider context.
Dan 4:10: This was a "vision," not a description of physical reality. Consider context.
Mat 4:8: Human eyes cannot see distant kingdoms even IF the earth were flat. This is Satan and Jesus - they have a supernatural revelation. Revelations happen on mountains in the Bible.
Rev 1:7: In an age with TV's, this is possible even with a spherical earth.
m2redshirt 2 years ago
"The profile view of earth is a circle from the vantage point of the person who "sits above.""
So the Creator was fooled by the perspective?
Cool.
"This was a "vision,""
A dream, to be accurate.
A dream of a FLAT EARTH.
"Mat 4:8: Human eyes cannot see distant kingdoms even IF the earth were flat. "
Another fail for the book, then.
It's not MY fault,
I would never have written such drivel.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
"Rev 1:7: In an age with TV's, this is possible even with a spherical earth."
You're right about that, redshirt.
Good thing I have all those back-up verses!
And of course I have not even mentioned the four corners of the earth,
the fact that it is motionless,
set upon pillars,
and those pillars standing on an unmoving foundation.
How about those 4-legged insects?
Hey, maybe they've evolved two more legs since then!
That might account for it, hey?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
TALKING SNAKE: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
Genesis 3:1 - 6
(No reference to Satan speaking through the serpent)
TALKING DONKEY:
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"
"No," he said.
Numbers 22:28 - 30
There is no need for insults or accusations, kvtassel;
the evidence speaks for itself.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
"Satan through an unspecified reptilian creature spoke"
That is not what the book says.
TALKING SNAKE: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
Genesis 3:1 - 6
No fair changing the text, kvtassel,
we gotta work with what it says.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
You are ignorant my friend.
Chapter one tells of the creation of earth life and man, Chapter two is a continuation of the story, and tells what happened (in the garden). 2:8
After God created Adam and placed him in the garden. God created one more of every animal so Adam could name them, etc... And to make Adam a witness of the Lords creative power. Every argument I've seen you raise are those only an individual ignorant of scripture could possibly have the nerve to stand behind.
manasseh41 2 years ago
This view is unbiblical and historically inaccurate.
souldude81 2 years ago
"scripture being tainted by hostile persons is indeed a concern"
Hey, I'm the guy who quotes it as read.
You're the one who keeps trying to change it!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kvtassel That is right! The Bible says the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:10!!
LouieG7777 1 year ago
To say that any version of stories told in any of the new testiment are not directly linked to the editited catholic pagan version is hard for me to swallow.
Rents66 3 years ago
What about errors in the KJV that carried over from the Vulgate... like only begotten... MonoGenes... or whosoever... pas ho pisteo... you see there are many weak translations of words in KJV. (that is only a couple)
IT IS STILL ONE OF THE BEST
but not perfect. I do believe that TR is the way to go though.
bereansearch 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You cant trust the bible AT ALL,
it was a fireside book of myth to start with
and it has been degraded steadily ever since.
It is so vague, so internally inconsistent,
so filled with scientific and historical error
and so many contradictions
that it is totally worthless for any sort
of instruction or moral guidance.
So the "version" you use is hardly significant.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Imagine, can you show me some examples of internal inconsistancy, historical erroers, etc, email them to me, and please dont get it off some website....bcuz I know thats probably where u get it from and I know that you havent read the Bible.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
" I know that you havent read the Bible."
This is the sort of silly thing people say
when they make assumptions
rather than seeking information.
I was a pastor for 44 years
and studied the bible nearly every day of that time.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
' Why are there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? (Examples: Matt 26:26, "Many Greek copies have ," Luke 10:22, "Many ancient copies add these words ," Luke 17:36, "These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies," Acts 25:6, "Or as some copies read, ".
These marginal notes compared the differences among the various editions of the Textus Receptus
Dean Burgon Society
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Do you know what the Textus Receptus is, can you identify a single Textus Receptus, if not, why not?
Edward, I pray that the Lord will truly take you out of the idolatry of KJV onlyism as he did me, and as he is making me holy that he also make you holy in Him. I am not perfect, I still commit sin against God Edward, yet he disciplines me as a Father does to his children, God grants me repentance and faith and I am growing in Him. He makes me have peace with GOD, AMEN!! WOW praise JESUS:)
Dejan2116 3 years ago
You clearly are not reading what I am posting. Edward Hills stated that the KJB was itself a representive of a unique TR edition.
And stop wasting my time. You are greatly deceived, but that was predicted by Paul
(2Ti.3:6-7)
I pray that God will open your eyes to the fact that you are a deceived woman.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Between the first two (B and a) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. ..
(Burgon, Revision Revised, pg.12)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
'God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Perhaps there is here an intimation that this would be most likely to be done by those who professed to be Christians, and who supposed that their names were in the book of life. In fact, most of the corruptions of the sacred Scriptures have been attempted by those who have professed some form of Christianity'
edwardpf123 3 years ago
In Rev.16:5, there is Gr. support for their use of 'O Lord' (296,2049)
As for 'shalt be' here the Trans. compared other translations (see the preface which you are so eager to quote) and came to the correct conclusion. That same reading 'shalt be' is still in the NKJ, KJ21, KJ2000 and YLT. Barnes in his commentary had no problem with the verse. In fact , he make an interesting comment regarding Rev.22:19.
Cont.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
What is your standard in knowing the truth of what the manuscripts said? Do you work backwords(which is by the way a logical fallacy) and read into the manuscripts whats in the KJV? OR Should you go from the Manuscripts to see if it matches the KJV? Since 100% Manuscripts do not contain those readings at all and for some cases in the KJV 99.9% of all Manuscripts do not contain their readings? THe KJV only position cannot be defended by any scholarship.Rev 22:19 and Luke 2:22 NO MANUSCRIPTS.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
I've never know a KJV-only person who could speak another language. If they could they would realize the (forgive the term) evolution of language and realize how weak their position is. I believe the KJV is the most accurate and best English-language version! But to say that the "word of God" is bound to a certain translation is ridiculous!
markpianoman 3 years ago
i think your missing the point my friend. the KJV and the NIV, NASB, ESV etc are from two different forms of manuscripts
jinkyfc 3 years ago
I agree, the KJV is from single manuscripts of a limited knowledge of textual criticism from the 17th century, with limited scholarship.
The NIV, NASB, and ESV are from a much higher knowledge of textual criticism, better knowledge of the original languages, and much better manuscripts, with rescent discoveries from the Dead Sea, plus more New Testament manuscripts. I downloaded a Greek-English program KJV to the Textus receptus and the words used and it doesnt even match the Greek perfectly.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The KJB is not from 'single manuscripts' it's NT is from various editions of the Textus Receptus. Nothing found has done anything to undermine the KJB. In fact, the recent discoveries have led the N/A 27th edit. to put back in hundreds of TR readings.
Which TR did you download? The KJB translators used several TR editions, including Beza's 5th edition.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Actually, the TR called "Scrivener's Textus Receptus" which is made by late Dr.Scrivener, it is the Greek text used for the KJV Bible, he reconstructed it, what Greek the KJV translators used.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
And if you will note that Scrivener assumed that Beza 5th edit.was the primary text and that in about 190 places it deviates from Beza. So, there is no one exact TR edition that the KJB was translated from.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
'KJB defenders' don't say that the word of God is only in English. The word of God is in many other languages as well, and those Bibles come from the same textual source that the KJB does.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Sorry, no text is 100% the same as the KJV not even the Textus Receptus from where it originates. If you knew Greek you would be shocked at KJV onlyists. The original Bible is in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. As Dr. James White said "The New Testament is like a jigsaw puzzle, we have about 1010/1000 puzzle pieces, and the task is taking out the extra". We can find the original text by textual criticism. Please do not get discouraged, we have the Bible, watch the first vid in my favourites.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Sorry, but texts are constructed from the various MSS and the TR represents a particular text type. The various editions vary among themselves in some places.
I do know Greek and I read my entire Gr. NT every month.
Yes, we have the Bible, and it is the KJB. in English. The task isn't taking out the 'extra' (W/H theory that the shorter reading is preferred) he task is getting the CORRECT reading, which is often the fuller reading (TR)
See my videos on the KJB.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Yes, I agree, the texts were constructed from various MSS, and Scrivener reconstructed what texts the KJV translators used in the KJV, his Greek reconstructed text lines up perfectly with the words used in the KJV, it is a fact.This is why the Trinitarian Bible Society(KJV Onlyists) know that the KJV cannot be perfect, because they know Greek and see that the KJV is not even a perfect translation of that Textus Receptus. Unless you want to say that the KJV is a new revelation...which is wrong.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
No, the KJB is perfect. Which TR are you talking about? The TR has a number of editions and the translators picked the best reading from them all. Also, when the reading was not a majority text reading they chose the correct reading from the other translations, including the Old Latin. So, the KJB is a perfect translation of the extant TR editions.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
My friend,
Look up Scriveners Textus Receptus even in KJV only websites, they know that it is the text of the KJV. Scrivener traced their use of words from the various Textus Receptus' and reconstructed the Greek text of the KJV, this is a fact.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
I have the work right in front of me and there are 190 places where it deviates from the Beza Text and he has notes in the back of it. So, the KJB is all TR, but it isn't all one edition of the TR.
'Dr. Frederick H.A. Scriverner listed the following places where the KJB did not follow the Greek Text of Theodore Beza (1598). The King James translators worked from various personal documents....(Where the KJB leaves the Greek Text of Beza 1598, DiVietro, pg.1)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I know that the KJV translators used various editions of the Textus Receptus, I am aware of that. But Biblical faith is not faith in something that is indefencable, and that is the core of KJV onlyism. Please watch some of Dr Whites videos on the subject, I will send it to you. Jesus is LORD amen, and he has given me the gift of faith in Him, and I praise my Lord for granting me life. KJV onlyism limits the defence of the Gospel my friend, it does not help in anything, especially for the Bible.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
But when I was a KJV only, I believed in a number of false doctrines, the false doctrines just kept piling up. I believed in Arminianism and other sub-biblical concepts of Salvation,etc. And trust me, I had those same emotional feelings when I 'defended' the KJV also, do not confuse emotion with the working of the Spirit. God broke me and showed me his truth of textual criticism.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Doesn't sound like you have learned much textual criticism. Now, show me a false doctrine that the KJB teaches in context.
I will show you a false doctrine that the MV teach by putting in false verses.
Lk.23:42-NIV/NASB remove the word 'Lord' from the dying thief's mouth,
Now, justify that reading from MSS evidence.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I never said that the KJV teaches false doctrine, but KJV onlyism is a false doctrine, that is what I was saying.
See the arguments against the NIV? Luke 23:42 is suppose to be an argument? As if the word "Lord" there changes the meaning of the text?Does the NIV present Jesus as Lord all over the place elsewhere? YES, no doctrine is changed by any Bible translation, they are all of God. But according to textual criticism, the word Lord doesn't belong there.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
No, those who advocate another bible translation are teaching a false doctrine since they are leading people away from the true word of God.
Yes, the removal of the word 'lord' does change the meaning, since that is the heresy of Adoptionism.
'In the Alexanderian text this prayer has been tampered with by the docetists, who believed that the divine 'Christ' returned to heaven just before the crucifixion, leaving only the human Jesus to suffer and die (KJV defended, Edward Hills, pg.136)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
We don't just have one Alexandrian text, there are multiple lines of transmission, (thus how come all of the lines which come from different places and from different scribes) all do not have the word Lord in it? Because it was not tampered with by any
The KJV translators then are false teachers teaching false doctrine since they said that a varietie(Many) translations of the Scriptures are profitable for the word of God, not just one.
Well, I disagree, the KJV translators were men of God.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The Alexandrian text type is like the TR text-type, it has a number of various editions put out, but essentially the agree with one another. The Alexanderian text is noted for being tampered with by heretics such as Origen and that is why it contains gnostic readings.
The KJV did not use any Critical Text as they were found in the Douey-Rheims and kept to the various editions of the pure TR.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Dear Brother,
When I say that KJV onlyism cannot be defended, I mean it, because it is a lie. Alexandrian text is tampered by Origen?? That is pure fiction! Most of the Manuscripts are not even when Origen lived, and they are not just from one place, but all around Egypt. No, the KJV used Printed Texts that were available to them at the time(The Textus Receptus Editions, Beza, Erasmus, etc) because most of the people were alrealy fimiliar with them, not because they rejected a 'text' type.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Origen tampered with the earlier MSS.
'Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria tht the text in question was fabricated...there is a marked resembalence between the peculiar readings of B/Aleph and the two Egyptian Versions,-the Boharic or version of Lower Egypt especially...no one can fail to have been struck by the evident sympathy between Origen...and the text in question....Alexanderia contributed largely to our Textual troubles (Burgon, TT, pg.234-35)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Agree. The Oldest Manuscripts were the ones with the most textual variations because the copies were not done by professional scribes, but people who just wanted to make a copy, whereas the Byzantine were done largely by professiona scribes. Origen could NOT have tamered with any Alexandrian text whatsoever because these texts were not all found in one library, but all around Egypt, if you want to believe this, it is pure fiction, which is the only apologetic defence of KJV onlyists:Fiction.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
No, Origen has tampered with many of the Mss.
'At Jn.1:28 Origen ALTERED 'Bnthania' to 'Bnthabara' in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty....
That is from Bruce Metzger,( The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edit., pg199,) not a King James Onlyist.
Origen's fingerprints are over the Mss text type that came out of Alexanderia as well as other heretics.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Brother in Christ,
I can make the same argument against the Textus Receptus.
Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? It is clear that it is not original, yet it is in the Textus Receptus and now in the KJV. Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? Has this been tampered with? If you were consistant you would say yes, but since you arent...
Dejan2116 3 years ago
First, the TR is not always majority Gr. texts. Sometimes it relies on other sources like the old Latin,(which contains 2nd century readings and church fathers,
E. Hills stated that there was Gr. evidence for the reading in 'E' and 431 and Peshitta.
As for Rev.22:19, 'book of life' is in ALL pre-1611 editions from Tyndale. It is in the modern edit. of KJ2000 and the YLT (scroll instead of 'Book')
So, no one was tampering with anything, they got the correct reading from various sources.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Edawrd, the TR has verses that arent supported in ANY Green manuscritps at all, especially the text of the KJV. Please explain why I should use the TR's readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5 when all Greek Manuscripts, Alexandrian and Byzantine, do not have the text that the Textus Receptus or KJV has in those verses?
Why should I accept the textual emendation of Beza on those verse? NO Greek Manuscript says "book of life", why do KJV only people remain inconsistant, ask yourself that?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Gr. support is found in #76 and a few other Gr. cursives. Interesting that the NKJ kept 'her' in their reading, without a fn. The Geneva has 'Mary' as well. The KJB is correct since it is referring to Lev. 12 and only the woman is mentioned.
Yes, there are Gr. Mss which say 'book of life', 296, 2049, and 2067(mg).
Hoskier believes that Erasmus got that reading from a Gr. Mss, not the vulgate.
Cont.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
By the way, the reading Rev.22:19 'book of life' is also found in the NKJ, KJ21 and the Spainish Reina-Valera, as well as earlier mentioned, the KJ2000 and YLT (scrolls)
Those King James 'wannabes' change other readings, so their keeping 'book of life' is, I believe, significant.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I pray that the Lord may help you understand textual critiicism, and that it does not put an end to the Christian faith, but its very foundation, how God preserved his word. The question is not "IF" God preserved his word, the question is "HOW" he did it. Now thats a fumdamental difference between KJV Onlyism and textual criticism. Why a 17th century Anglican translation though, which is translated from error-ridden Textus Receptus of the Renaissance?
I look forward to your answers.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
I pray that God will open your eyes to the fact that you are being deceived. Modern Textual criticism believes that there is no real Bible, only different translations of various texts. The correct view of Textual criticism is that it served it purpose. That those in the 17th century believed that God did preserve his words,
The W.M. Confession believed the Hebrew and Greek texts they had were pure.
'and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages'
edwardpf123 3 years ago
It should be noted that the KJV translators didn't even accept the Quraninc Infallablity that KJV translators have adopted in the text of the Bible. There cant be any variations in any manuscripts so it must not be from GOD the Muslims say, and the KJV people do the same. If you are really sure about the text of the KJV, why not visit James White's website and talk to him on his Radio Show, and let us see if the KJV can be defended. KJV onlyism limits the defence of the Gospel!
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Frankly, I am not concernec with what the KJB believed about their own translation. They state very clearly that it's intent was to make one PRINCIPLE good one out of many good ones. And they believed they made an EXACT translation. In those two views, they were correct. They made one principle, exact translation which God blessed and ended all need for any further English translations. It is the anti-KJB zealots who are causing the confusion, we have a Bible, you don't.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Please call in Dr James White hes on his radio show right now at aomin org, go to 'webcastt' and dial.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
But the KJV translators made that translation... what you mean your not conccerned. KJV only people 1) ignore historical context 2) Ignore the kJV translators 3) Ignore all of textual transmission.
If you ignore the KJV transltors, how can you even say with any respect for truth, that the KJV is inpired? who told you? Please don't confuse emotions with the working of the Spirit, thats what it was for me, pure emotions, nothing else. I thought "If I leave KJV I leave Scritpure", so wrong.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
No, what we ignore are people who reject the Bible that God gave them. And you ignore the fact that the translators said that their intention was to make a 'principle one' from many good ones.
Do you know what the word 'principle' means?
'FIRST IN RANK, IMPORTANCE'
That was the GOAL of the translators, that their translation would be the FIRST IN RANK of all the translations that became before them. So, stop ignoring the intention of the translators. Their work is STILL the PRINICPLE one
edwardpf123 3 years ago
How do you know that God gave that Bible? Who told you, can you prove it, because the evidence is certainly against it. I have no problem with the KJV, it is a good translation and I would not object to reading it, i have the 1611. But my problem is when some Chrsitian who knows nothing about how he even got the KJV tells me that it is the only Bible.
I agree, and the KJV is a principal translation compared to the earlier versions. It is a revision of the Bishops Bible,etc. But now, no.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
What evidence is against it?
I know that God gave us the KJB by the FRUIT it has born. And what version do you think has supplanted it as the principle translation?
Well, I know how we got the KJB and I know that 'it's equal will never be seen again'. And that was said by Alister Mcgrath, who was editor of the NIV theme bible, in his work,' the King James Bible, how it changed a language, a culture and a Nation'.
There is only one Bible for the English speaking people, the AV1611.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
1)The manuscript evidence is against it.
2)The Vulgate was used for 1,100 years, look at the fruit? Circular argument....
3)Yes the KJV was first to be given among all people, doesn't mean it is some kind of 'final translation', thats not what the KJV translators said.
4)Yes its fruits are in Christ, all Bible versions have fruits in Christ, especially the NIV, most sold since the KJV
5)If you knew Greek, you would see the falacy of your argument
6)So if I don't know English, then what?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Wrong, the correct Mss readings support the KJB
The Vulgate was not the only Bible in use.
No, the KJB was the last in the line of many other good translations. They didn't know that it would be God's final English translation
The modern versions have only born the 'fruit' of ecumenalism and dead churches.
I do know Gr. I told you that I read the entire Gr. NT every month.
There are other language TR Bibles.
You have been deceived by false teachers.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
They didn't know that it would be God's final translation, wow! Can you prove this? Why is it Gods final english translation, can you give an adequate answer?
Actually, it has nothing to do with dead churches, it has soemthing to do with the rise of the common era, the post-modernism and athiesm, charles darwin and others, not with "Alexandrian manuscripts" lol.
Go get Youngs Literal Translation which is a transltionn of the TR, and compare it to KJV, lets see if the KJV is perfect?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
No, why would I think YLT is a better translation then the KJB?
How do I know that it is God's final translation? Because the quality of men brought togehter was unique. There will never be another Milton, Shakespere, Chaucer, Declaration of Independence, another American Constitution, another Gettysburg address, all the fruit of men who read the KJB, and never another KJB.
Now run along and read your mess of pottage, the NASB/NIV and stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Young's UNliteral translation is a PIECE OF GARBAGE! It mistranslates "church" to "assembly" in matthew 16:18. Christ WAS building his CHURCH, not an assembly... It also says that peter is A rock, no no no! thou art PETROS (small rock) and upon PETRA (meaning CHRIST) does the CHUCH be built. Talk about changing the Words of God.
Young's literal translation copies KJV in hebrews 11:1. Shows how it is just a watered-down REWRITE of the KJV.
ChristKeep 3 years ago
Christkeep, the word in Greek for church means ASSEMBLY, thats who the church is in the New Testament- the assembly of believers. Like I said, if you knew greek, you would see the foolishness of KJV onlyism.
No Christkeep, YLT is a translation from the EXACT same Textus Receptus as is the KJV, when you look at the differences between the KJV and the YLT, realize that the YLT is the word for word translation of the same text, the fact that you call it a piece of garbage is very silly.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The YLT is no more an exact translation of the TR text used in the KJB then is Berry's interliner. The KJB is the exact translation of the correct text. You don't know Greek and you don't know what you are talking about.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
My brother, you know Greek you say, and you cant see that the KJV is not a perfect translation? WOW.
Even the Trinitarian Bible Soceity is not ignorant enough to say that the KJV is a perfect translation becaues they know Greek, which is why even though they are KJV only, they approve the "TR", which is a limited printed text with limited textual study. The Na27 and UBS4 are the best printed texts that we have.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
If you knew Greek you would know what great translators the KJB translators. The TBS doesn't have a problem with the Greek translations, they have an issue with some of the verses, that they believe aren't Majority text.
The Na27/ubs4 are junk. I have NA 26 and UBS3. Not much difference. But the one thing that the Na26 did do was add back hundreds of TR readings that the Na25 had rejected.
That is the state of modern textual criticism.
But you can't read them so how would you know?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
When you say TR, what do you mean? There is no edition of the TR that can be called one defenite TR, therefore, even when you say TR, it is an inconsistant argument to somehow prove the reliablity of the Na27.
Because the YLT renders it literally, and if you were to compare it, it is not the same as the KJV AT ALL. This shows you that even in the TR, dynamic equivalence translators differ from literal ones, now thats a good argument against the KJV.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
unreliablity of the na27*
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The KJV translators didn't LIMIT themselves to the T.R. - they used other translations (like the geneva and bishops) as aide. King James' rules he set forth were to ensure everything was translated correctly or the most accurate. New translations garble everything; King James didn't have any agendas to distort the Bible - and he knew more about the original texts than most people today: read his Daemonologie, Basilikon Doron, or meditation on Revelation/Matthew.
ChristKeep 3 years ago
Amen brother!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, ONE PRINCIPLE good one, not justly to be EXCEPTED AGAINST; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark....through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see#15
[The purpose of the translators, with their number, furniture, care, etc.]
edwardpf123 3 years ago
If you accept their words here, read just 1 page further and they get into textual criticism and how it applies to the KJV(which I already sent you on email) if you are really serious in studying the truth.
Please get a 1611 KJV facsimile for $19.99 at Christianbook com and read the preface on your own, and you will see that the KJV only websites abuse and falsly misrepresent the KJV translators words.
May the Lord Jesus be with you and that you finally reject doctrines of men, amen.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
And why do you reject the intention that they had to create a 'principle translation'
Yes, they used 'textual criticism' but their 'textual criticism' was not like the modern kind. It believed that God had preserved His words in their pure form in the Received text. And thus, they FINISHED the need for textual criticism by giving us a perfect translation.
May God open your eyes to the deception you are under by false teachers.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Thats not what the KJV translators believed, its actually the opposite, they said that God has left some things questionable, which is true in textual criticism. They said that their translation is not perfect also. I was under deception by false teachers, and I dont want to be wrong, if you are right then I would be able to prove it right, but the TR has mistakes in it.. its well known and cannot be defended at all.
Circular arguments is all I see from KJV onlyism...JESUS IS LORD AMEN.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
'through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see'
The translators said that God's hand was on their translation. They believed they were making one more EXACT translation of God's words. Try reading what the translators actually said.
The TR does have differences in it, but the KJB translators were able to always choose the correct reading. You are rejecting God's words, so save the phony piety.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
YEs the good hand is upon them, so it was on Tyndale and all the other ones, they give glory to God as we always should, because that work is not ours but for the glory of God and for his people. But what is not there is "This translation is perfect!!!" they said the opposite, they said right after saying about the 'principal translation' that they agree wtih textual criticism, and after that they said to the reader "dont be bothered if we used certain translations of a word..etc.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Where does Matthew say that his work is inspired? Where does Luke? John? Just because men don't know their work is going to be usec by God doesn't mean it isn't.
And they got the TEXT correct and the marginal notes were removed and NOT MISSED by anyone. No one cares what a word MIGHT be, they are only care what it IS. And the IS is found in the TEXT.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
But Matthew doesn't deny it. The KJV translators do: now thats a problem. We as Christians do not look at what is inspired by looking for a signiture by Matthew lol, we know something is scripture by it being god breathed and by its recognition from the people of God, thus the cannon came into being.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Edward, don't get too kooky, the apostles DID know they were inspired okay, you can easily test that with many verses, especially Paul's writings: Paul writes that he was taught by GOD and not of men (I'm SURE if I was taught personally by God I'd be inspired) - it is blasphemy to say WORD of God wasn't inspired nor the people who wrote it!
But, people who smash the KJV must REALIZE that King James set forth correct biblical guidelines (unlike the NIV board); hence it beats ALL translations.
ChristKeep 3 years ago
Why does the KJV set forth better biblical guidlines than the NIV translators? The NIV translators didnt limit themselves to the Masoretic text, they used the Dead Sea Scroles also, plus the manuscript evidence.
The fact is, the KJV is translated in a time where limited textual study was done, limited knowledge of variants were there, and limited knowledge of textual criticism. The fact is, the KJV translators denied inspiration and accepted textual criticism-why should I become a KJV only?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
None of those have advanced the knowledge of anything. The correct texts to use are the MT/TR. The KJB translators believed they were translating the word of God and that they had that word. Modern textual criticism believes that the Bible should be seen as just another ancient book that God had nothing to do with preserving, that God gave the originals but couldn't preserve them well enough to get them into a book. The two views on Textual criticism are totally different.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Which TR edward, is the correct text? Can you identify the TR, and if not, why not?
Ofcourse the KJB translators believed they were translating the word of God,b ut your heart has become so hardened in your own conclusions edward, that you simply refuse to listen to anything I say, even when I showed you in the words of the KJV translators, that they beleived even if the translator doesnt perfectly translate the word of God(which they believed was them) it is still the word of God.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
I refuse to listen to what you say because you don't know that you are talking about!
What the KJB translators said is irrelevant to what God did with their work.
And how would they know that 400 years later and a billion copies later, it would still the STANDARD work? That is of God, not man.
As for the TR, yes I can idenifty it, it is the found in the KJB.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
'Dr. Hills believed the authorized KJB was not merely an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus, he believed it was an independent variety of the Textus Receptus....
Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus."
Dean Burgon Society
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Edward that is not what modern textual critics believe, they believe in the tanacity of the text- that all readings(even if a scribe mispells a word) remains in the manuscript tradition, which must also mean that all(original) readings are still there also, which is the job of believing textual scholars to study, of which by Gods grace, I pray he raises up.
Waites assertion is ridicilous ,simply because hes judging todays textual criticms with the less knowledgable one in the 17th century.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The modern textual critic believes that at least 5% of the text is doubtful,so they believe that God wasn't able to preserve ALL of his word. The Critical Text is approx. 5,000 words LESS then the TR.
The 17th century got it right, the modern critics got it wrong and are using the wrong text (Alexanderian) as the basis for their readings.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The dead sea scrolls were edited by the papacy, you can search for photos of it (or personally ask me to give you some). Perhaps it wasn't the best thing to limit the hebrew texts; but the Jews preserved them quite well, and we still have Isaiah's original scroll, so, no worries with translating there.
The KJV was NOT translated in a time of "limited" textual study, Edward de Vere was correcting his Geneva Bible which shows they had vast scriptures available.
ChristKeep 3 years ago
WHAT!!!? Dead Sea edited by PAPACY? Ridiculous! This is the kind of argumentation we hear from KJV onlyism, it is expected.
The facts are right there, and to dodge them the KJV onlyists have to work backwords from the KJV and look at the manuscripts through the lens of the KJV, in the same as the Muslims look at it thorough the Quran, and Mormons look at it through the Book of Mormon. Do you see any similiarities between these world views?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
They not knowing doesn't mean it wasn't inspired. What WRITINGS made it into the Canon was due to the church RECOGINZING what was written was indeed inspired, as opposed to other works that were written by those same men which didn't make it into the Canon. So what was orginally written FOR the Canon as indeed inspired because God breathed life into what was written. And the early church recognized those Books as being alive and therefore Scripture.
2Pe.1:21 refers to speaking not writing.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
that is a very good point (looking at the church as a whole opposed to individuals). The apostles did know they were writing for God - because God told them what to write - but just the same, God used King James to translate the Bible. King James DID know he was doing God's service - just as the apostles did.
ChristKeep 3 years ago
No doubt that the Apostles knew what they spoke and wrote was from God, but they didn't know what was going to make it into the Canon. It seems that Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinithians, yet only two made it into the Canon. Now if that letter would be found, it still would not be Canonical simply because the NT Canon was closed in the 1st century by that generation who recognized the Canon.
Likewise, the issue of the AV1611 was finished by the 17th church which reconized it was God's words
edwardpf123 3 years ago
You see what KJV onlyism leads to edward, like I said, I was in false doctrine when I was a KJV only and the attacks against the Bible kept piling up- this shows with your attack on the cannon of scripture right now.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The apostles did not know they were writing from God, really? Have you read 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Corinthians 14:37, etc.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The Apostles didn't know what they were writing was going to be in the Canon. 2Tim.3:16 says all Scripture is given by Inspiration, not that everything an Apostle wrote was scripture. Peter is referring to Paul's writings, not his own. Nothing in 1Cor.14:37 says that Paul knows that what he is writing is going into the Canon, only that he writing with the authority of the Apostle. You need to learn to read English, not worry about Greek!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Edward, the fruit of KJV onlyism is clearly being seen, you deny that Peter is inspired? You deny that any of the Books of the New Testament are inspired or do you think that there should be more added into the cannon? Edward my friend, I am shocked at your answers and your denial of the Scriptures, now thats KJV onlyism for you, and thats what it is going to continue to do to you.
James White was right, you hear more about the KJV from KJV onlyists than about Christ, is this wrong?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Why don't you actually READ what I said?
You clearIy can' t read simply English. I said, the writers of the NT I named didn't KNOW THEY were writing inspired scripture and not even thing they wrote made it into the Canon.
And how do we know that we have the right books of the Canon? By FAITH. It was the 1st century Church that recognized the books and the Church as agreed with that decision. And we recognize the correct WORDS as well.
White isn't correct on anything and you are deceived
edwardpf123 3 years ago
How do u know that they didnt know they were writing inspired Scripture, Paul clearly said that he knew, why are other NT writes any different?
I agree that it was the church that recognized it, but I disagree with your assrrtion.
Or you are decieved, which was predicted by Paul?
One of us is decieved, and if you can prove that I am, then I am, if you cannot, then I am not. However, if I can show you from the KJV translators that you are, and its proof, why aren't you decieved?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Well, you can disagree all you want the FACT is that those I named who wrote scripture did not say they were writing scripture, so your argument that the KJB isn't scripture because the translators didn't say it was falls apart.
The one who is deceived is you. What the KJB translators said about anything is not an issue about the quality of their work and to keep harping on it like it is,is simply nonsense.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
" the writers of the NT I named didn't KNOW THEY were writing inspired scripture"
No, they certainly did not.
In fact, Paul goes so far as to DENY
that he is writing god's thoughts.
Yet you claim he was.
So you have your inspired word
stating that it is not inspired.
Quite a conundrum.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
No, what Paul did write was regarded as scripture as attested to by Peter (2Pe.3:15).
In 1Cor.7:12 when Paul said that' he was speaking, not the Lord' he was just saying that the Lord had not directly addressed that particular issue..
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"In 1Cor.7:12 when Paul said that' he was speaking, not the Lord' he was just saying that the Lord had not directly addressed that particular issue.."
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"
These words say that Paul, "not the Lord", wa speaking.
Why won't christians just accept the words of scripture as written?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
You will note that Paul makes reference to what the Lord explictly commanded in 1Cor.7:10, ('yet not I, but the Lord) so when Paul states that he is speaking, not the Lord, he is simply saying this was not explictly commanded by the Lord, not that it was simply Paul's opinion.
Reading scripture correctly, means reading it in CONTEXT.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"Reading scripture correctly, means reading it in CONTEXT."
Agreed. But first one must read WHAT IT SAYS.
And the words
"I, not the Lord"
means, so far as I can see,
"I, not the Lord."
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
And that must be taken in context with what he said earlier when he said that it wasn't he speaking but the Lord (1Cor.7:10) so both statements go together and that is why it was stated that way, so you would see that Christ commented on one issue, but not the other. Paul wasn't saying that what he was saying wasn't from God.
That is what the passage is saying when read in its correct context.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I see you're just going in circles here.
That's what makes it religion rather than reason, I suppose.
Enjoy your "faith."
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Adam Clark,
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord - As if he had said: For what I have already spoken I have the testimony of the Lord by Moses, and of my own Lord and Master, Christ; but for the directions which I am now about to give there is no written testimony, and I deliver them now for the first time. These words do not intimate that the apostle was not now under the influences of the Divine Spirit; but, that there was nothing in the sacred writings which bore directly on this point.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Try reading the verse in its correct context, not isolating one sentence.
Enjoy your rejection of the truth.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Yes, he was speaking as an apostle who has authority given by the Lord- and what he says is the wod of God:) All scripture is.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
"what he says is the wod of God:)"
So he was inspired to say he was not inspired?
Is there NO lack of reason that causes you people to blush?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Yes Imagine, he was not denying inspiration- yet he wrote by the authority of an apostle and said that the Lord did not specifically tell him such a thing face-to face or in a vision-etc, he spoke according to the his authority as an apostle.
Your pushing a statment in the text that simply isn't there- now thats eisegesis at its best. lol
Dejan2116 3 years ago
"To the rest speak I,
NOT THE LORD."
Perhaps you use words differently than I do.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Perhaps you just aren't letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, but are practicing eisegesis(reading into the text what doesn't belong there). This is the wrong way in studying the Bible. You are suppose to do EXEGESIS to study the Scriptures, to find out what it contextually, historically and gramatically means.
Thank you.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Dejan2116 :--You are suppose to do EXEGESIS to study the Scriptures, to find out what it contextually, historically and gramatically means.--
Who says ? Christ ????
Philos2006 3 years ago
Who says? Yes, Christ, his Scriptures tell you to do EXEGESIS, not EISEGESIS:
2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Dejan
"he was not denying inspiration"
Paul
"to the rest speak I, not the Lord"
Perhaps if YOU just let the scripture speak for itself....?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
According to Burgon, the fundamental mistake of contemporary N.T. textual critics was they they ignored the unique character of the N.T. text. They would not recognize that they were dealing with a book that was different from all other books, in short, with a Divinely inspired and providently preserved Book:...These latter scholars followed a naturalistic method, taking particular pride in handling the text of the N.T. just as they would the text of any other ancient book'
(Unholy Hands, p.24)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The original reading is still preserved in the Greek Manuscripts, the task is identifying it:) which is what Textual Scholars do. Therefore, the New Testament is INSPIRED and Authoratative. the Only Word of God=Bible.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
I have no problem with the KJV, it is a good translation,especially for the 17th century. But my problem is when people start saying that it is the only Bible. I use to be a KJV only, and I am glad that God took me out of that tradition of man into the truth of textual criticism-it has only strengthened my faith in the Bible and not the opposite.
I was a KJV only & was convinced that the KJV onlyism is false because I read IN the 1611 KJV that the translators agreed with textual criticism.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
when ever i think textual criticism i think of this verse
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID??????..............
jinkyfc 3 years ago
Christians have never believed in the standard of an infallible set of manuscripts, this has only been newly adopted by KJV onlyists. The Bible is 100% preserved, yes, but the issue is, how did God preserve it? And thats the study of textual criticism, we are able to find the original text through that study. It is no "Yea Hath God said" type of thing, it is a fact of Scripture. The New Testament Quotes from the Septuagint, which itself is a translation of the Hebrew.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The Bible is inspired, and true, amen:).
Dejan2116 3 years ago
@Dejan2116
"Textual Criticism" is a good thing with regards to fallible things created by man but it is blasphemous when applied to the word of God since the Word of God is not fallible and to imply that it is shows you lack of fath in Jesus Christ who is the Word of God.
ChildOL 3 years ago
Do not mistake me for trying to weaken your faith in the word of God, God forbid, I praise the Lord Jesus, the author of the Scriptures. But Christians should no longer be shilded from the textual variants of the New Testament, we must know them, because the KJV only position cannot be defended by any scholarly merit. Just because God didn't preserve his word your standard doesn't mean that he didn't preserve his word. Jesus is LORD, amen:)!
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The KJB translators did do textual work and REJECTED the false text of 'B' found in the Douay-Rheims. They held to the Received Text found in Tyndale and the Geneva Bibles as well as many foreign translations.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Actually, that is completely wrong. They rejected none of the Greek Texts, this is a complete lie made later by KJV onlyists, nowhere will you find in their Letter to the Reader where they "Rejected the text because they thought it was evil". Completely false. Yes, you see, they did textual work to find the original, thats why they put verses in the margin, as they said! Read for yourself the truth! They said "VARIETIE OF TRANSLATION IS PROFITABLE!" Do you use varietie? Or are you KJV only?
Dejan2116 3 years ago
They rejected the Douey-Rheims readings which they had right before them when they translated. Those readings contained Critical Text readings from 'B'.
So, yes they did reject the Critical text readings.
And they also said that their purpose was to make out of many good ones, 'ONE principall good one, not justly to be excepted against'
So, is the KJB your ONE PRINCIPAL Bible?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Show me where in their writings they rejected those readings, infact, from the "Translators to the reader" the 1611 KJV translators write that a Bible should always have footnotes in the margins to help the reader, and never dogmatize on uncertain verses(1 jo 5:7) because God was pleased to leave some things questionable. That is what they said, and that is what textual critics believe. SCRIVENER reconstructed that Greek text that the KJV translators used, this is a clear fact, search it up!
Dejan2116 3 years ago
The marginal notes were to show difference meaning in the Heb and Gr. words they used. They never appealed to another textual line. Yes, I know Scrivener reconstructed the Gr. text, and he has in his work a number of places where the text leaves Beza and he is unsure of the source of the reading. So, why don't you look it up. I have Scrivener's work.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
If you were to read what the KJV translators actually said in the 1611 you would know why they used marginal notes, and wouldn't make up stuff. My brother, I am not trying to shake your faith in the Scripture, God has preserved his word in the Manuscript tradition. The KJV translators would have appealed to other manuscripts if they had access to them, but they didn't have access. The KJV is not perfectly translated from the Receptus, thats why many KJV onlyists say its a NEW REVELATION.
Dejan2116 3 years ago
Wow, this is amazing! It shows how God has preserved His Word through different forms of paper!
icartoon2 3 years ago
KJV is cetainly the most beautiful english version available
biggbaddjohn 3 years ago 2