KJV Only...which one!

[JesusFan1]

But you seem to miss the essential point The NA28 contains ALL of the manuscripts, including those found in the Textus Receptus. Nothing is missing at all.

They are ignorant of textual criticism!

 

[JesusFan1]

Yes, there are differences between Greek Editions. So what?

Kjvo seem to assume that the TR is the perfect Greek text, same way they see the Kjv being in the English!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

There is a huge difference between a commentary and a translation.

You have to understand that the King James Bible was not a work that was solely in favor of one kind of belief of a particular church over another. King James wanted a translation that was not like the Geneva Bible or Puritans (Calvinists), and he did not want a Bible like the Bishop’s bible (Anglicans) (because of certain false beliefs they had in the Bible). So King James wanted a translation for the common man or for all men that did not favor the Puritans and did not favor solely the Anglican’s way of thinking. That’s why the King James Bible was created. James took two sides who disagreed with each other and made them to come up with a translation (that was not his idea originally) that was fair to the best manuscripts and translators of the time. The beliefs of these men are not going to be perfect, but we do not see anywhere in the King James Bible that directly teaches infant baptism and so their personal beliefs (if such was the case for ALL KJB translators - which you really cannot know because men can lie and or exaggerate the truth of stories and we don’t have an account on every thought recorded of the men by God who translated the KJB). But surely if infant baptism was something they believed, it was not in the Bible itself. They were not creating a commentary, but a translation from manuscript evidence and God was providentially preserving His words despite their imperfect beliefs.

But despite this…. If the KJB is not the Word of God… then where is it?
It cannot be the NIV, NASB, etc. because they come from Rome.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They are ignorant of textual criticism!

No. The Nestle and Aland text does not primarily rely heavily upon the Textus Receptus. If it did, then 1 John 5:7 would be in the Bible among other verses.

 

[JesusFan1]

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 mistrust the NA and Ubs texts, as somehow they see both of them were 'corrupted" by Rome!

 

[JesusFan1]

You don’t understand that there are two lines of manuscripts.
One pure and one corrupt.

However, the chart above here that says the Sinaiticus is from 350 AD is false.
It’s actually a recent corrupt manuscript or forgery.

Take for example:

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God or the words of men?

By the way Modern Scholarship Believers speak here, it sounds like they believe that the Bible is a work of men and not God.

That’s the problem.

NO, we hold that the Originals were inspired and perfect, not any translation!
KJvo elevates bible to same way Muslums do their Koran!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Textual Criticism in itself is in favor of the Roman Catholic church’s way of thinking. It’s not Bible Alone, but it’s placing the scholar upon on a pedestal. Just as the Catholic today says we cannot know the Bible without the priest, so today Textual Criticism says you cannot know the Bible without knowing what the scholars say in the original languages. Just as the Catholics at one time in history did not allow men to understand the Scriptures because it was spoken in Latin and they had to go to the priest to get the understanding. History repeats itself.

 

[JesusFan1]

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.

Kjvo assumes that the critical greek text has been corrupted form the start by Rome somehow!

 

[JesusFan1]

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.

The bible has NO need to be perfect and inspired in any translation, as the Holy Spirit did that with the Originals!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Kjvo mistrust the NA and Ubs texts, as somehow they see both of them were 'corrupted" by Rome!

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[JesusFan1]

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.

And the differences in the variants and renderings affected NO major doctrines nor theology!

 

[JesusFan1]

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

My Nas does not favor Rome, as it was 1611 kjv that favored infant baptism, do you?

 

[JesusFan1]

There is a huge difference between a commentary and a translation.

You have to understand that the King James Bible was not a work that was solely in favor of one kind of belief of a particular church over another. King James wanted a translation that was not like the Geneva Bible or Puritans (Calvinists), and he did not want a Bible like the Bishop’s bible (Anglicans) (because of certain false beliefs they had in the Bible). So King James wanted a translation for the common man or for all men that did not favor the Puritans and did not favor solely the Anglican’s way of thinking. That’s why the King James Bible was created. James took two sides who disagreed with each other and made them to come up with a translation (that was not his idea originally) that was fair to the best manuscripts and translators of the time. The beliefs of these men are not going to be perfect, but we do not see anywhere in the King James Bible that directly teaches infant baptism and so their personal beliefs (if such was the case for ALL KJB translators - which you really cannot know because men can lie and or exaggerate the truth of stories and we don’t have an account on every thought recorded of the men by God who translated the KJB). But surely if infant baptism was something they believed, it was not in the Bible itself. They were not creating a commentary, but a translation from manuscript evidence and God was providentially preserving His words despite their imperfect beliefs.

But despite this…. If the KJB is not the Word of God… then where is it?
It cannot be the NIV, NASB, etc. because they come from Rome.

The scriptures are ultimate sense found in the Hebrew and Greek texts, correct?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

NO, we hold that the Originals were inspired and perfect, not any translation!
KJvo elevates bible to same way Muslums do their Koran!

Guilt by association is not always true. It’s actually silly to say that no perfect Bible exists because then a person or scholar can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say (Whenever it disagrees with them). The text keeps changing when new… Non-Textus Receptus manuscripts comes to light. Why did they not get the Bible right the first time? They keep changing it based on other better manuscript discovers. How do they know these new manuscripts are really from God and better? They don’t. They are guessing. The text keeps changing. God is not the author of confusion and or at the thoughts of men on what God said. We have God’s Word today that we can hold in our hands and say it is the Word of God. We don’t believe in some almost… Word of God. You cannot speak with authority with a non-existent imperfect Bible that keeps changing.

 

[farouk]

We have God’s Word today that we can hold in our hands and say it is the Word of God.

Its meaning refers back to the originals.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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.

I don't think I am being confusing. I disagree with your premise that differences between the KJV and the Modern versions are "CHANGES". You are wrong about that. Your arguments ASSUME that the KJV is perfect. Then, when differences are found between the KJV and other translations, you count these as "Changes".

Everyone agrees that translations are different. And I told you why they are different. The Textus Receptus was both incomplete and inaccurate, which is why Erasmus corrected it. The TR is still incomplete and inaccurate. I doubt you want Christians to read a Bible that is inaccurate. Right? Modern translations aren't changing anything. They are CORRECTING errors. Do you think it is wrong to correct errors?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The scriptures are ultimate sense found in the Hebrew and Greek texts, correct?

Not necessarily. What do you think happened in Jeremiah 36:28-32? When the original was destroyed… a copy was made by Jeremiah AND… something amazing happened. New words were added to the copy. It did not remain exactly like the original. So the idea of originals only is just a sham. God can edit His Words as He sees fit so as to preserve His Words for us today in the English. Granted, I am not saying God is making radical changes or anything, but God is making the necessary changes in the English to reflect what was said in the originals. For not all languages translate word for word. God knows this. So God is capable of adding words to a copy. He did it before, and He can do it again as a part of the preservation of His own words. But what is interesting is that these added words… are there but they are not there. So no actual words have truly been added in one sense. But in another way they are there for us to understand. The Bible speaks about how there are words that are there and yet not there. But this is above your pay grade that you would only scoff at and not appreciate.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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

It would seem so.

 

[JesusFan1]

Guilt by association is not always true. It’s actually silly to say that no perfect Bible exists because then a person or scholar can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say (Whenever it disagrees with them). The text keeps changing when new… Non-Textus Receptus manuscripts comes to light. Why did they not get the Bible right the first time? They keep changing it based on other better manuscript discovers. How do they know these new manuscripts are really from God and better? They don’t. They are guessing. The text keeps changing. God is not the author of confusion and or at the thoughts of men on what God said. We have God’s Word today that we can hold in our hands and say it is the Word of God. We don’t believe in some almost… Word of God. You cannot speak with authority with a non-existent imperfect Bible that keeps changing.

Why do you grant to the 1611 Anglicans scholars inspiration to make perfect decisions then, and not allow same for modern versions?

 

[JesusFan1]

Its meaning refers back to the originals.

valid translations are infallible witness to those originals!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Kjvo seem to assume that the TR is the perfect Greek text, same way they see the Kjv being in the English!

I know. I have discussed this matter with folks who actually believe the KJV is inspired and unalterable.