KJV Only...which one!

[CadyandZoe]

I provided a list of verses from Textus Receptus Bibles that show you the changes.

Your comparisons, which show differences, do NOT speak to my point that the NA26, NA27 or NA28 represent ALL of the manuscripts. NOTHING is left out of these editions. Period.

I thought I told you this earlier but perhaps I was speaking to someone else. So please bear with me if you already heard this. The study of archeology changes over time as more of the past is unearthed to reveal more information about previous civilizations. Biblical Archeology is no different. Our knowledge of ancient times in the Middle East has increased over time, and because we understand the past better, we understand previously spoken languages better also.

In Addition, as more of the past is unearthed, more fragments of the Greek New Testament are found. Currently we have over 5000 manuscripts, either complete New Testaments or fragments of the New Testament. Out of all these manuscripts exist textual variants, which "arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to the text that is being reproduced." In other words, when someone hand copies a book, the copyist can make a few mistakes. The copyist might inadvertently add a word or leave one out or misspell a word etc. Sometimes the copyist will make a note of his mistake in the margin. Between all these variants, about 99% of them are insignificant and only about 1% affect doctrine.

The comparisons you present simply prove the fact that Editions of the New Testament Greek contain manuscripts which differ slightly. What they don't prove is that the changes were created, on purpose, for nefarious reasons. You are seeing evil motives where none exist.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Here is the list of changes that you can check for yourself by taking the actual Greek from the Textus Receptus and copying and pasting it into Yandex.

Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text - Textus Receptus Bibles

Then you can take the Greek from the Nestle and Aland and copy and paste it into Yandex and see the changes. The Nestle and Aland does not use the TR (Textus Receptus) as it's primary base. It uses the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts as its primary textual basis.

Again, as I said, we have thousands of manuscripts and out of all these manuscripts, there are variations. Those who have studied these variations have classified these variations according to text type families. If one compares the Textus Receptus with other Editions of the Greek New Testament, one is comparing one family type to other family types. That's it. That's all there is to it. The question remains, which variant is original?

Granting that copyists make copy errors occasionally (rarely) scholars attempt to track down where the error took place in order to determine the original reading. Given certain strategies, and hard work, one can eventually trace the errors back to their origin to discover the original reading.

What we can NEVER do, is assign motive or blame to these variants or suggest that nefarious plans and schemes are the cause of these variants. They are simply copyist errors. That's it. The job of a translator is to weigh the evidence to decide with variant is original and to translate the original into the target language.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Please keep in mind that the TextusReceptus Bibles is TRO and not KJVO. They are “Textus Receptus Only” and they are open to re-translating and or updating the KJB (of which I do not agree with). But the point here is that Textus Receptus Bibles website shows you the changes of which you can confirm for yourself with other online resources.

Again, these aren't CHANGES. Comparing Greek Editions simply reveal textual variations. And the presence of variations don't reveal wholesale changes of the Bible by those who hate God and don't believe in the Trinity etc. The variants arose over time in the natural course of hand-copying the New Testament. That's it. Nothing nefarious about it. Simply human beings subject to fatigue, or distraction.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the passage quoted, the context suggests that it is the people mentioned in the preceding passage that are preserved.

This would be in the Modern English Translations that come from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that is the textual basis for Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text that favors the Westcott and Hort text (Which has many ties to the Roman Catholic Church).
Now, I personally use Modern Translations but they are not my final word of authority like the KJB because Modern bibles have been corrupted on a doctrinal level and they make Jesus appear to sin, and they place the devil’s name in them where they do not belong in the Bible.

Psalms 12:6-7 KJB
6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalms 12:6-7 NIV
6 “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,”

I list other doctrinal problems in Modern bibles within this thread.

See post #458, post #459, post #460.

I do believe in the principle of the preservation of the Scriptures.

Is this a “thought for thought preservation of the Scriptures,” or a “word for word preservation” of the Scriptures?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, as I said, we have thousands of manuscripts and out of all these manuscripts, there are variations. Those who have studied these variations have classified these variations according to text type families. If one compares the Textus Receptus with other Editions of the Greek New Testament, one is comparing one family type to other family types. That's it. That's all there is to it. The question remains, which variant is original?

Granting that copyists make copy errors occasionally (rarely) scholars attempt to track down where the error took place in order to determine the original reading. Given certain strategies, and hard work, one can eventually trace the errors back to their origin to discover the original reading.

What we can NEVER do, is assign motive or blame to these variants or suggest that nefarious plans and schemes are the cause of these variants. They are simply copyist errors. That's it. The job of a translator is to weigh the evidence to decide with variant is original and to translate the original into the target language.

Go to any English grammar class and show the comparison of these verses between the KJB vs. Modern bibles and tell the teacher and the students (That are not biased towards the silliness of Modern Scholarship) and they will tell you the different verses convey different meanings.

One word change in a sentence can have a giant impact on the meaning of a sentence. If a woman says… “no” to a man… that means “no” and not “yes.” Word changes… convey different ideas of what is being said. So you are talking confusion here.

 

[farouk]

This would be in the Modern English Translations that come from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that is the textual basis for Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text that favors the Westcott and Hort text (Which has many ties to the Roman Catholic Church).
Now, I personally use Modern Translations but they are not my final word of authority like the KJB because Modern bibles have been corrupted on a doctrinal level and they make Jesus appear to sin, and they place the devil’s name in them where they do not belong in the Bible.

Psalms 12:6-7 KJB
6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalms 12:6-7 NIV
6 “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,”

I list other doctrinal problems in Modern bibles within this thread.

See post #458, post #459, post #460.



Is this a “thought for thought preservation of the Scriptures,” or a “word for word preservation” of the Scriptures?

The link I supplied from Matthew Henry's commentary comes from a source that is a few centuries old (he was born in the 17th century). He understands the original to be referred to the preserved people of God in verse 7.

 

[JesusFan1]

This is your opinion. One can still rely on the original languages. Yes without being puffed up, since you asked. I myself do study the original languages and cultures. Now am I a scholar no. I do however sit under professors who teach the languages and those extremely gifted ones who have dedicated their lives to teaching the languages such as some Rabbis who have long passed. As a teacher I try and make every effort to understand these things. As there are way to many preachers and pastors that are peddling lies and disinformation by simply not understanding the original author's intent and culture they lived in. Which is very different to our own. I used to be one of those but by the mercy and grace of Yahweh I repented and have moved on Blessed be His Name.

One needs to also understand that scholars do not agree on many interpretations, how grammar works, word order, syntax, constructions, discourse analysis, what is narrative what is non-narrative, prose, poetry etc, etc.

Our English mindsets, language fall miserably short when weighed against the original. For this reason I cannot in good conscience teach from the modern-day perspective. Let me give you some examples the word faith is connected to a nursing child, and a tent peg driven into the ground. Grace is directly related to pitching your tent and living within the camp. The word light is connected to being in order. Biblical author's who where Hebrew's think in cycles unlike us Greek thinkers who think in a linear fashion for example a timeline we plot history by a point on a line Hebrews do not. I could go on and on and on.

Most doctrines within most denominations are erroneous simply because of not understanding most of what has been said above. I know I used to be one of those. I heard a true story from someone who teaches Hebrew at one of the big seminaries. Hebrew and Greek are not compulsory in most bible seminaries or colleges they are electives which is an absolute disgrace in and of itself. For the ones that do, do them they mostly forget about them in a very short period of time which is evidenced from what and how they preach.
Anyway back to the professor's story he would usually have a class of around 30 students, and more times than not only 2 - 3 of them would even bring their bible to class. On top of that he would run into students years later and they had completely forgotten about the language studies. No wonder the churches are compromised, preach a half - baked powerless message, allow what the bible calls abominations within their midst. My Bible says to be Holy for I am holy!!! Yahweh words not mine.

So going back to what was challenged yes I will stick with the original languages and culture to better understand what our creator is teaching who by the way chose predominately the Hebrew language to communicate His words and who by the way chose that culture and people to use and who by the way chose to manifest Himself as a Jew in the person of Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus the Messiah)

Shalom

English translation are very good to use, but the best books to be getting into as the supreme and final authority will be to get back in the original Biblical Hebrew and Greek texts themselves!

 

[JesusFan1]

Actually I am talking about you. You said 1 John 5:7 is the best scripture to establish the trinity. Yet it is at best highly controversial. To almost all Bible scholars outside of the KJ only crowd, the Johannine Comma is spurious.

Even Eramus could not found it until his third edition, and that came in from Latin sources!

 

[JesusFan1]

You object to the Greek manuscripts modern Bible scholars use because they were found in Alexandria. Yet you have no objection to Athanasius being from Alexandria.
Thankfully Bible truth can be found in many, many translations including the KJV. It just might be a little harder.

The 1611 Kjv translators used both Vulgate and Rheims bibles, so they agreed with you!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Re. Psalm 12.7, Matthew Henry has a helpful commentary:

Commentary on Psalms 12 by Matthew Henry

Many times I have gone to commentaries in the past, they just seem to be devoid of what the Holy Spirit is saying. We need to pray, and compare Scripture with Scripture more. We need to simply read the context to get the meaning more. Yes, I believe the reading of Christians can be helpful (like current believers who are alive), but I have not found any old commentaries that made me go… “Wow, that is truly profound.” So I have given up on them. Matthew Henry believes that water baptism is essential to salvation. He also believes in Calvinism, as well. These are two things I strongly disagree with and so I would not be going to him to get any spiritual insight (Seeing he is distorting other verses in Scripture to fit man made beliefs that I find to be repulsive).

 

[JesusFan1]

That's right. The meanings of words sometimes depend on the historical context. And every few years, Biblical Archeologists discover ancient writings and artifacts that shed new light on the meanings of words. This alone is a good reason to publish a new Bible, replacing misinterpreted words and ideas with the correct ones.

There have been great advances in the Lexicons, historical and textual sources available to us since the 1611 Kjv, and should avail ourselves of them!

 

[JesusFan1]

Many times I have gone to commentaries in the past, they just seem to be devoid of what the Holy Spirit is saying. We need to pray, and compare Scripture with Scripture more. We need to simply read the context to get the meaning more. Yes, I believe the reading of Christians can be helpful (like current believers who are alive), but I have not found any old commentaries that made me go… “Wow, that is truly profound.” So I have given up on them. Matthew Henry believes that water baptism is essential to salvation. He also believes in Calvinism, as well. These are two things I strongly disagree with and so I would not be going to him to get any spiritual insight (Seeing he is distorting other verses in Scripture to fit man made beliefs that I find to be repulsive).

One being Calvinist does not mean cannot translate the scriptures though well, and the 1611 team all believed in infant baptism, do you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The 1611 Kjv translators used both Vulgate and Rheims bibles, so they agreed with you!

There are two lines of manuscripts. One line of manuscripts comes from Antioch (Which is where Christians are first named). The other lines comes from Alexandria which is the fountain head of gnostics, Arianism, etcetera. Alexandria is in Egypt and Egypt is mentioned as predominantly as being negative in the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There have been great advances in the Lexicons, historical and textual sources available to us since the 1611 Kjv, and should avail ourselves of them!

Not if these Lexicons come from the Revisers who attacked the Traditional Text. Not if these textual sources come from Alexandria Egypt that shows a clear line of changed doctrines.

 

[farouk]

This would be in the Modern English Translations that come from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that is the textual basis for Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text that favors the Westcott and Hort text (Which has many ties to the Roman Catholic Church).
Now, I personally use Modern Translations but they are not my final word of authority like the KJB because Modern bibles have been corrupted on a doctrinal level and they make Jesus appear to sin, and they place the devil’s name in them where they do not belong in the Bible.

Psalms 12:6-7 KJB
6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalms 12:6-7 NIV
6 “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,”

I list other doctrinal problems in Modern bibles within this thread.

See post #458, post #459, post #460.



Is this a “thought for thought preservation of the Scriptures,” or a “word for word preservation” of the Scriptures?

Even if you decline to look at the commentary I referred to, the original to which I was referring was the Hebrew in Psalm 12, not the Greek of the New Testament. (I agree with some of your misgivings with aspects of the Nestle-Aland) but I was referring to the original in the Hebrew about people being preserved in Psalm 12.7.

 

[JesusFan1]

One being Calvinist does not mean cannot translate the scriptures though well, and the 1611 team all believed in infant baptism, do you?

I don't accept your premise that Wescott and Hort did anything to the scriptures. These men created an Edition of the Greek New Testament. That's all.

But the modern translations aren't based on the Wescott and Hort Edition. They are based on the "Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (Greek Edition)"
https://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Nestle-Aland-Greek/dp/1619700301

Here you can read the preface of the NASB
Preface to the New American Standard Bible

The Novum represents ALL of the manuscripts available at the time of publication, which includes every reading on which the KJV is based. Nothing is missing. Nothing is left out. It is ALL there.

The difference between the KJV and the modern translations is NOT due to anything that Wescott & Hort produced. Rather, the difference between the KJV and the modern translations is due to a change in perspective concerning the age of the manuscripts. On one side we have scholars who believe that translators should give more weight to earlier readings, while other scholars believe that translators should give more weight to later readings.

In any case, EVERY reading is included in the NA28. And translators are free to use their own judgment concerning which readings to represent in the English language. The translators and scholars are NOT being influenced by Wescott and Hort in the slightest.

Kjvo really know very little in regards to the art of textual criticism!

 

[JesusFan1]

This a rather bold assumption, considering you have never met everyone who studied Koine Greek. I also doubt you have ever studied it for yourself long enough to know for absolute certainty that no one can understand it 100%. The original texts override anything that any translated bible says because they were inspired by God, not the flawed work of translators.

The Holy inspired the scriptures to us in biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, not in English!

 

[JesusFan1]

Think. People misunderstand the Bible in English in hundreds of ways, and you want them to understand it in a completely foreign and dead language that has not been around for thousands of years? Also, folks are only learning based on what RECENT “Biblical Hebrew/Koine Greek” dictionaries say. These dictionaries were not passed down from Moses and the apostle Paul to be with true accuracy that is not biased by men who may be influenced to their own personal beliefs. Lexicons we have today are generally from the REVISERS who attacked the Received Text and or the King James Bible that existed for hundreds of years prior. Take for example James Strong and his concordance. While his concordance is based on the TR (Textus Receptus) to favor the KJB, he technically was a REVISER who worked with Westcott and Hort on their Critical Text.

I tried to study a Portuguese (Brazilian) to English book to impress my fiancé (now my wife) when we used to date. She ended up correcting me on a lot of things that book said. So just because it is in a book does not mean it is an accurate book by any means and then there is how languages change throughout time and different idioms, etcetera that could be lost to time. Unless. Unless…. God simply preserved His Words for us today by divine intervention. That’s the only way we can have God’s words. The other way is only a flawed human reasoning. It would be men simply guessing as to what God said in some dead language. For if God left men alone to preserve His words, we don’t know what the Bible would really be like. We would not even know if we had the Bible (if such were the case). So God either preserved His Words today by His power or He didn’t. I am mean… stop and think a moment. Really think about this. God made the flesh and bones of giant sea creatures like whales and dinosaurs. God made the Earth to be at the right tilt in orbit, and the right distance from the sun. Everything is perfect for life. A little bit that way or a little bit this way and there would no life on our planet. Jesus held all things together by the Word of His power when He was on the cross (According to Scripture). But God has no power to preserve His own words? His very own Word says that His words will be preserved forever and they are perfect, and I believe Him (See: Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

You seem to be denying that the biblical Hebrew and Greek texts have final authority to us as Christians, over above any english translations!

 

[JesusFan1]

The Modern English Translations today are based on the Nestle and Aland. This is true. But you are not aware that the Nestle and Aland still uses the Westcott and Hort text to a good degree. Not entirely… but it does rely upon it still.

And the 1611 translators relied upon the Vulgate and Rheims form Rome to a degree!

 

[JesusFan1]

That is no longer the case.

Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations Compared to Ten Years Ago (2021 Update) | Church Answers



I wonder how accurate that is today as this article is from 2016. I cannot find more current statistics. Also, as a former cradle Catholic who is now an Episcopalian, my Episcopal church has NKJV bibles in the pews as well as links to the Sunday mass scripture readings that link to NKJV verses.

Niv been best sellers for many years!