The KJV of the Holy Bible is based on what? A question for all the KJO folks.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
36,665
24,011
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text.
The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript.
There is no one single manuscript from which any "major" Bible version is translated, all are from a compilation of various manuscripts. So the question is, which compilation is more accurate?

The manuscripts used for the Alexandrian versions are, if memory serves, in about 75% agreement with each other. There are only a handful of them.

Meanwhile, the Majority Text (MMS - Majority Manuscript) manuscripts share over 99.5% agreement, and is nearly identical to the TR. There are many thousands of these. The Majority MS and the TR are both from the Byzantine family, of which there are thousands and thousands of witnesses.

Have you studied about Wescott and Hort, and the impact they made on Bible versions?

Much love!
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,598
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The KJV of the Holy Bible is based on what? A question for all the KJO folks.

PART 1
It has been said "The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish God's truth.
What is the question, exactly?
 

Rella ~ I am a woman

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2023
1,972
1,117
113
77
SW PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
i concur that i too hate that word .
BUT , i know it meant to say PASSOVER . and if you do examine
the geneva and other translations YOU WILL SEE THE and the KJV all agree ON DOCTRINE .
i imagine the translators used the word easter , due to the fact it was already being used .
NOW , sure i would not have done that . BUT that one word alone dont make me disregaurd that version .
I , if i read it to people , always make note that means to say PASSOVER .
you can always markie out the word easter and write above it passover if it bothers you so much .
I DONT NEED TOO . i already know what it meant . BUT YES i do hate using the word easter
due to i know of its origins . HOWEVER
even amongst those who do , what i teach them is the same thing i teach about christmas .
YOU can honor the day , BUT DONT BRING THE PAGAN INTO IT .
In other words we can honor passover , good friday , etc , Christmas
JUST DONT bring the pagan into it . NO bunnies , no eggs , no trees , no santa .
Rather odd though . MANY folks who even have a problem with the word EASTER
STILL have ZERO problems with the PAGAN . now that would be called HYPROCRISY big TIME .
YOU SEE i believe in correcting the SIN and ERROR .
And while some might not like to call it easter , NOR DO I , YET I Seem to see
even the sames ones handing out candy ON HELLOWEEN . MY GOODNESS we do got us some problems .
I dont believe in partiality . this gringo named amigo , HE CORRECTS ALL SIN . and ALL SIN
means that certain sins DONT GET OVERLOOKED IN THE CHURCH .
Some folks that even have a problem with the word easter , AS DO I ,
yet THEY seem to say HEY JUDGER , JUDGE NOT when i correct the sin of homosexuality or love of money
WITHIN THE CHURCH . IF WE GONNA CORRECT , LETS PLEASE NOT BE PARTIAL
or that just makes us decieved and HYRPROCRITES who pick and choose .
No, I wont agree that they concurred.

As it was said .. PART 2 above...

Here is where the story of the KJV and the TR comes into view. The KJV translators did not use a single Greek text for their translation, but multiple. Their primary textual sources were Beza's 1598 edition and Stephanus' 1550 edition. While these editions were very similar, they differed from one another. (Even here... differences, yet Jimmy's men relied on them)

And I believe that Jimmy's 41 men (it was 41??? I have a senior moment) cherry picked enough stuff that they could give a "BRAND NEW TRANSLATION" to King James... because that was the reason the were appointed to that task.
 

Rella ~ I am a woman

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2023
1,972
1,117
113
77
SW PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oh i cant stand that word either .
But then i also cant stand HELLOWEEN .
oops .
You will soon see why just about EVERY man or woman alive has a serious problem with me and their hate for me
grows only more so by the day . cause i expose ALL SIN . ALL SIN .
i dont pick and choose squat . many be very , and do i mean very fast to put me on ignore too .
Folks may do as they please , THIS lamb wont conform at all . out of great love shall i continue to do
as i am led to do .
I dont hate you. But I also will call you out where I see a wrong.
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
29,847
50,603
113
53
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I dont hate you. But I also will call you out where I see a wrong.
never said YOU hated me . so show me where i was wrong to say as i did
about easter , about helloween , about praticing the pagan .
we both know you wont be able too . heck you might not even try too cause you already know its wrong .
but i say as i do becaus there are other things as well
that many be overlooking .
for example some might even expose helloween and yet even they support WOMEN BISHOPS and etc .
You see , when i said i expose all error , i mean all error . you be encouraged and may you be blessed of the LORD .
but this lamb sticks to the bible .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvelloustime

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,598
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no one single manuscript from which any "major" Bible version is translated, all are from a compilation of various manuscripts. So the question is, which compilation is more accurate?

The manuscripts used for the Alexandrian versions are, if memory serves, in about 75% agreement with each other. There are only a handful of them.
Seems that you are equating accuracy with precision. ‘More agreement’ is a proxy for precision, not accuracy.

Precision is repeatability. Accuracy is hitting the target. Precise manuscripts that are not accurate are not helpful at all.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,598
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

BlessedPeace

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2023
5,917
4,612
113
Bend
youtube.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
me thinks i am about to go on ignore by even more folks .
ol amigo aint no picker and chooser of what sins to expose and what sins to not expose .
this gringo , by grace exposes ALL SIN and all ERROR within the church .
may it be a ice cold day in the lake of fire long fore i ever stop .
ALL SIN gets corrected in any church i see . when i see a sin getting praticed
or even OVER LOOKED .
But is he mature enough to realize he isn't always right?
 

Rella ~ I am a woman

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2023
1,972
1,117
113
77
SW PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no one single manuscript from which any "major" Bible version is translated, all are from a compilation of various manuscripts. So the question is, which compilation is more accurate?

The manuscripts used for the Alexandrian versions are, if memory serves, in about 75% agreement with each other. There are only a handful of them.

Meanwhile, the Majority Text (MMS - Majority Manuscript) manuscripts share over 99.5% agreement, and is nearly identical to the TR. There are many thousands of these. I don't see the MMS as a separate manuscript family, rather, it is a witness to the TR. The TR was compiled from the first handful of manuscripts, and archeologists have since found thousands which support it's readings over the Alexandrian, or Western, or Ceaserean.

Have you studied about Wescott and Hort, and the impact they made on Bible versions?
No but I will cause , God permitting.
Much love!
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,598
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Which has better provenance throughout history, … as a Sword …??

:hmhehm
The KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. It's day in the sun is over. We know longer speak that way. The "TO" part of the translation flaw makes it unreadable to me.

The "FROM" part of the translation cannot hold a candle to what we've learned over the last 4 centuries. It's now the very worst translation available in English with more errors than any other translation.
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
29,847
50,603
113
53
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But is he mature enough to realize he isn't always right?
Whether one is not always right is not the debate at hand .
The conversation was , if i be in error please show me through THE SCRIPS where exactly my error be ................
Lets embrace the lovely book again shall we . i cant get wrangler or any to do it .
WHEN did the bible become the enemy of christains . OH wait it never did . Just most dont like
things taught in it , cause , well it do expose their sins . as i am sure you would agree .
rather than us trying to correct others by what seemeth right
lets bible up and start learning that which is RIGHT and then let us expound upon the lovely truth .
Isnt that just lovely my friend . let us think upon the things that are PURE and lovely , TRUTH .
anything contrary to lovely truth , WELL lets not ponder on it but rather flee its concepts .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvelloustime

Rella ~ I am a woman

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2023
1,972
1,117
113
77
SW PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Whether one is not always right is not the debate at hand .
The conversation was , if i be in error please show me through THE SCRIPS where exactly my error be ................
Lets embrace the lovely book again shall we . i cant get wrangler or any to do it .
WHEN did the bible become the enemy of christains . OH wait it never did . Just most dont like
things taught in it , cause , well it do expose their sins . as i am sure you would agree .
rather than us trying to correct others by what seemeth right
lets bible up and start learning that which is RIGHT and then let us expound upon the lovely truth .
Isnt that just lovely my friend . let us think upon the things that are PURE and lovely , TRUTH .
anything contrary to lovely truth , WELL lets not ponder on it but rather flee its concepts .
Well, for myself I use one or two "modern translations" ... usually Nasb95 ( nothing newer)

But my preference that I check against anything modern including the NASB95 is the Peshitta (A " collection of Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible. ") and the Septuagint LXX. ( the later being , for those not aware, is Greek Old Testament dating to 3rd century BC , in Koine Greek

Of the vernacular versions of the Bible, the Old Testament Peshitta is second only to the Greek Septuagint in antiquity, dating from probably the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

Why is it important...? Aramaic was the most common "shared language" among people of the Near East and Middle East for many centuries. This includes the years immediately before and after the earthly ministry of Jesus. And Jesus spoke Aramaic fluently.

Do you know one of the reasons why the New Testament ws written in Greek?

Simple: When Jesus told the 11 to "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Pop quiz, what were the original languages of Scripture?

Most of us might venture answers such as Greek or Hebrew. After all, maybe we learned a Greek word like logos and how it applied to John 1, or we saw someone get a Hebrew word from the Bible as a tattoo.




But many of us forget about a third language in which the writers penned Scripture: Aramaic.

For instance, we find portions of Ezra and Daniel containing Aramaic, the language of the common people. Back during the time of Jesus, the Jews would have spoken multiple languages from Hebrew, Aramaic, and the lingua franca at the time (most likely Greek).


Now, what does this have to do with the title “Peshitta”?

Peshitta is a “collection of Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible.” Many Syriac churches will use this version of the Bible as their primary text.

This seems innocuous enough, but this manuscript has drawn a great deal of controversy. We’ll dive into some of those controversies here, discuss the original language of the New Testament, and touch on why this matters to us today.

The Peshitta Controversies​

As mentioned above, this manuscript has drawn a number of controversies. First, and primary, those who use this version of the Bible as their primary text often adhere to something known as “Aramaic Primacy.”




Those who assert this position believe that the New Testament writers didn’t write the manuscripts in Greek but rather Aramaic.

We know, from the language of the Aramaic used in these manuscripts, that certain dialects used in the Peshitta manuscript existed centuries after Jesus’ time. Therefore, scholars overwhelmingly believe the New Testament writers penned the latter half of the Bible in Greek.

Check out some examples here about the differences in dialect and language of the Aramaic throughout the centuries.

The Peshitta manuscript also runs into another controversy through its connections with someone known as George Lamsa, who believed in the Nestorian heresy. This heresy believed Jesus existed as two persons rather than one person with two natures.

Lamsa, who aligns with Nestorian views, asserted the idea of the New Testament being originally written in Aramaic.




We do, however, have to venture into precarious territory here and avoid committing ad hominem fallacies. Simply because someone has faulty views on the incarnation of Christ does not necessarily mean they have erroneous conclusions on other spiritual matters. But it does mean we should exercise discernment if they do commit a heresy.

Why Did They Write the New Testament in Greek?​

We do know that the writers of the New Testament most likely spoke the every-day language of Aramaic. So why doesn’t this draw the conclusion that they wrote in the lingua franca of Jews?

Recommended
Is it Possible to Know What the Will of God Is? Plus
Is it Possible to Know What the Will of God Is?

To answer this, we have to look at the motive of New Testament writers. Jesus ministered to the Jews, but they received the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”




This meant reaching the Gentiles.

To do so, they needed to write in a language used by most of the known world. Thanks to Hellenization, that meant Greek. (For those who do not know what that is.. Wiki, to the rescue.. LOL...Hellenization or Hellenism is the adoption of Greek culture, religion, language, and identity by non-Greeks. In the ancient period, colonisation often led to the Hellenisation of indigenous peoples; in the Hellenistic period, many of the territories which were conquered by Alexander the Great were Hellenised)

I simply feel that the older any transcript is to the time that Jesus walked the earth or to that of Genesis the better as there is less likelihood of things getting all mixed up.
 

NayborBear

Active Member
Jan 21, 2020
315
114
43
72
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rather odd that the kjv , geneva and the older versions like wycliffs and tyndales , AGREED .
again its the newer versions that i see problems within .
I did much study my friend . other than a few words , for example kjv used easter rather than passover
and yet if you read it you know its meaning passover . they are the same .
The meanings are the same . ITS THE NEWER so called that CHANGED some meanings
. THIS WAS AN AGENDA . they came to plant the idea that some things are off in these older translations
so as they could decieve people into their direction . wescott and hort were not the well scholarly
christains so many churches THINK they were . I examined THEM TOO .
men with agendas . just like the JW who changed the bible and used the same line
so too does this agenda . NOTICE its always an attack on the original . EXACTLY .
they duped us my near and dear friend . But me they duped not , cause some of us
dont just take a so called scholars word for squat . SOME of us exactly do our own individual HOMEWORK .
they were found WANTON SISTER . big time too . they duped christendom . and its only gonna get worse too .
Very MUCH agree!
If ONLY they "COULD" do THIS!!:

1 John 2:26-28
King James Version

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Of course many many people think/believe verse 28 refers to the Return of Jesus!
It does not!

It refers to (how can I say) a/the "VISITATION" event that occurs when one who has?......Well? Think the parable of the prodigal son. When one who has been "out and of the world" realizes the error of his ways and goes through not only the "physical" sacrifices of returning?
But ALSO (and this is very important!) the spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

It is THEN that one may be more fully cognizant of what verse 28 truly is indicative to.

It is because this doesn't happen (especially by preachers/teachers/higher institutions of spiritual indoctrination) that we find ourselves in these last days: well? Where we are finding ourselves!

Paul recognized this!
Called it: "The GREAT apostasy!"
Because of its glacierly slow advancements/seductions!
 

NayborBear

Active Member
Jan 21, 2020
315
114
43
72
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.....May I add the reason for aforementioned apostasy?
Is because these (also) aforementioned ones' cannot handle the "pushback" that comes when one matures in the SPIRIT!
And because of this have (erroneously) descended to preaching and teaching the great commission: TO A FAULT!!
And because of this? (common salvation) Have placed "glass ceilings" on every new convert they encounter!
Dismissing those who dare to press on to the HIGH calling of GOD in/through Christ Jesus as "self appointed" prophets/teachers/ even (by some) gnostics/false prophets/wolves in sheeps clothing (the list goes on).
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
36,665
24,011
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We do, however, have to venture into precarious territory here and avoid committing ad hominem fallacies. Simply because someone has faulty views on the incarnation of Christ does not necessarily mean they have erroneous conclusions on other spiritual matters. But it does mean we should exercise discernment if they do commit a heresy.
While someone who denies Christ's incarnation will not necessarily be wrong on other matters, I'd consider it highly likely as it shows an nonspiritual reader of the Bible, someone unable to discern it's truth. You know what they say, a broken clock is right twice a day, just the same, I prefer working clocks.

I simply feel that the older any transcript is to the time that Jesus walked the earth or to that of Genesis the better as there is less likelihood of things getting all mixed up.
Consider the Sinaiticus, why was this manuscript there to be found? And where was it found? It was there because it was unused. Why? Why would a precious manuscript of the Bible lay there for centuries unused? What did they know?

And when you consider the only 75% agreement with the other couple of old manuscripts, why, if they are more accurate, do they disagree so much?

Personally, my conclusion is based on faith. God promised that His Word is forever established in heaven, that His faithfulness is unto all generations (Psalm 119). So then, a Bible that disagrees with the exceeding majority of Bibles (which do agree), and which was not even available to be read for over 1,000 years, I don't believe it is what God intended us to have.

So now we have all these watered down Bibles made from these few defective discarded manuscripts, that weren't even available for centuries, lost in the sands of time. Kind of like Mormonism. "No true church for centuries and centuries, until we finally found the golden tablets!" But His faithfulness is to all generations.

Much love!
 

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There are three types of English bibles;

1. Literal translations

2. dynamic translations

3. Paraphrases.

Most literal translations have very few disagreements among them. Other than agenda driven translations like the RSV,NRSV, MOffatt, Goodspeed and the NWT, You won't go wrong with them.

Dynamic translations. They say they seek to capture the authors intent. This is foolish. It is an attempt at mindreading and saying that what was written was not what was meant. if they simply modernize extinct words (like Denarii) can be good. Sadly most have author bias built in and very from very good to very bad.

Paraphrases are generally very lousy as they use the authors interpretation as the basis for the rewriting.
Every translation has an agenda, bias or perspective, including the KJV. I find it important to keep in mind the particular bias of a translation. The RSV decided to translate the OT without a New Testament slant, trying to translate closer to how the OT Jew would understand the words. I like it for that reason. The NRSV introduced feminist views and the NRSV Updated Edition carried this a bit further. Even the KJV had it's bias or perspective -


I suppose my most trusted 'carry to church' Bible is my Cambridge KJV including the Apocrypha. I've never found any error in the KJV that affected my understanding of the faith of Jesus Christ. The KJV, RV, ASV do avoid the culture corruptions of modern feminism, and the evangelical bias on passages like Ex. 21:22, 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10. The KJV actually uses a dynamic translation on those last two.

I trust the scholarship of the KJV translators using the TR over the scholarship of any of the modern translators.
 

rebuilder 454

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2023
3,528
886
113
69
robstown
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Every translation has an agenda, bias or perspective, including the KJV. I find it important to keep in mind the particular bias of a translation. The RSV decided to translate the OT without a New Testament slant, trying to translate closer to how the OT Jew would understand the words. I like it for that reason. The NRSV introduced feminist views and the NRSV Updated Edition carried this a bit further. Even the KJV had it's bias or perspective -


I suppose my most trusted 'carry to church' Bible is my Cambridge KJV including the Apocrypha. I've never found any error in the KJV that affected my understanding of the faith of Jesus Christ. The KJV, RV, ASV do avoid the culture corruptions of modern feminism, and the evangelical bias on passages like Ex. 21:22, 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10. The KJV actually uses a dynamic translation on those last two.

I trust the scholarship of the KJV translators using the TR over the scholarship of any of the modern translators.
Yes
I have to believe my God is able to put into my hands His word.
The TR.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
15,012
4,467
113
70
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Every translation has an agenda, bias or perspective, including the KJV. I find it important to keep in mind the particular bias of a translation. The RSV decided to translate the OT without a New Testament slant, trying to translate closer to how the OT Jew would understand the words. I like it for that reason. The NRSV introduced feminist views and the NRSV Updated Edition carried this a bit further. Even the KJV had it's bias or perspective -


I suppose my most trusted 'carry to church' Bible is my Cambridge KJV including the Apocrypha. I've never found any error in the KJV that affected my understanding of the faith of Jesus Christ. The KJV, RV, ASV do avoid the culture corruptions of modern feminism, and the evangelical bias on passages like Ex. 21:22, 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10. The KJV actually uses a dynamic translation on those last two.

I trust the scholarship of the KJV translators using the TR over the scholarship of any of the modern translators.
I love the KJV. I have used it for over 45 years.

I also love Bible gateway on line. It has 40 English translations and I find that sometimes I can get a clearer picture comparing some of the literal translations.

I dislike the RSV for Westcott and Hortt created their own greek and used the septuigant for the OT.