KJV The Pure Word of God?

[Michiah-Imla]

Have I said it is outdated? Yes, and it is.

I do not believe that it is outdated.

Some excellent tidbits are gleaned from kjvtoday.com

In the New Testament, the KJV often follows the Greek word order more closely than most translations. These can also be confused with archaisms. For example, Matthew 17:19 says, “Then came the disciples to Jesus.” This syntax, which has the verb preceding the subject, may seem peculiar to contemporary English-speaking audiences; but the word order in the KJV follows the Greek word order (“τοτε προσελθοντες οι μαθηται τω ιησου”). Mimicking the exact style and structure of the Greek can sometimes preserve what is emphasized in the Greek.

Supposedly archaic words that are preserved in jargons:
Some words that are deemed archaic are actually still used frequently by some segment of the population as terms of art. For example, “let” (Romans 1:13) is considered to be a prime example of an archaic word in the KJV (“let” in this usage means “hindered”). However, the term “without let or hindrance” is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Thus people who work with immigration, such as border guards, lawyers, policy makers, and many educated people are familiar with the term “without let or hindrance.” This makes “let” a jargon rather than an archaism. Also, anybody who plays or watches tennis will know that a “let” is called when a stroke does not count and hinders the gameplay. Thus a word such as “let” may be infrequently used today, but it is not entirely obsolete.

 

[Jim B]

I don't think that is what any of us has claimed. Have I ever said I do not like the KJV? No. Have I ever said that the KJV is a BAD translation? No. Have I said it is outdated? Yes, and it is. And no, the KJV is not the worst translation out there, it is a good, a very good, translation. Is it the best available today? No.

Notice the addition to my signature below...

 

[reformed1689]

I do not believe that it is outdated.

Some excellent tidbits are gleaned from kjvtoday.com

In the New Testament, the KJV often follows the Greek word order more closely than most translations. These can also be confused with archaisms. For example, Matthew 17:19 says, “Then came the disciples to Jesus.” This syntax, which has the verb preceding the subject, may seem peculiar to contemporary English-speaking audiences; but the word order in the KJV follows the Greek word order (“τοτε προσελθοντες οι μαθηται τω ιησου”). Mimicking the exact style and structure of the Greek can sometimes preserve what is emphasized in the Greek.

Supposedly archaic words that are preserved in jargons:
Some words that are deemed archaic are actually still used frequently by some segment of the population as terms of art. For example, “let” (Romans 1:13) is considered to be a prime example of an archaic word in the KJV (“let” in this usage means “hindered”). However, the term “without let or hindrance” is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Thus people who work with immigration, such as border guards, lawyers, policy makers, and many educated people are familiar with the term “without let or hindrance.” This makes “let” a jargon rather than an archaism. Also, anybody who plays or watches tennis will know that a “let” is called when a stroke does not count and hinders the gameplay. Thus a word such as “let” may be infrequently used today, but it is not entirely obsolete.

Following Greek word order has nothing to do with accuracy. It's a translation choice, and a poor one. Follow the grammar of the language you are translating into.

And yes, it is outdated. We do not use the language of the KJV today. I AM NOT SAYING we do not use English and that there is nothing in the KJV that is useful for today. Not saying that at all.

 

[Jim B]

I do not believe that it is outdated.

Some excellent tidbits are gleaned from kjvtoday.com

In the New Testament, the KJV often follows the Greek word order more closely than most translations. These can also be confused with archaisms. For example, Matthew 17:19 says, “Then came the disciples to Jesus.” This syntax, which has the verb preceding the subject, may seem peculiar to contemporary English-speaking audiences; but the word order in the KJV follows the Greek word order (“τοτε προσελθοντες οι μαθηται τω ιησου”). Mimicking the exact style and structure of the Greek can sometimes preserve what is emphasized in the Greek.

Supposedly archaic words that are preserved in jargons:
Some words that are deemed archaic are actually still used frequently by some segment of the population as terms of art. For example, “let” (Romans 1:13) is considered to be a prime example of an archaic word in the KJV (“let” in this usage means “hindered”). However, the term “without let or hindrance” is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Thus people who work with immigration, such as border guards, lawyers, policy makers, and many educated people are familiar with the term “without let or hindrance.” This makes “let” a jargon rather than an archaism. Also, anybody who plays or watches tennis will know that a “let” is called when a stroke does not count and hinders the gameplay. Thus a word such as “let” may be infrequently used today, but it is not entirely obsolete.

What are you trying to say? So the word "let" is used in the passport notes of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Israel. So what? Let it rest, will you?

 

[Truther]

Rejected by who and when?

It was found in a garbage can a long time ago and reused by a curious scholar.

 

[reformed1689]

It was found in a garbage can a long time ago and reused by a curious scholar.

What was found in a garbage can? And cite some sources. You really are brainwashed aren't you?

 

[Truther]

Christianity is wrecked? Do you realize how that sounds? Are you really so intolerant and narrow-minded that you think that those of us who don't use the King James translation have destroyed the Christian religion because we don't agree with your choice of Bibles?

Don't you see where your intolerance of others in the body of Christ is leading you?

Yes, Christianity is wrecked.

The KVJ stood as the authority for God's word alone for over 300 years.

If sinners repented, they picked up a KJV to teach themselves.

Rebel forces of anti-KJV persons began working on multiversionism projects, like Strongs etc, in the 20th century.

They started with a fraudulent Greek project via Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Alland and created the modern version spectacle we see today.

Now, this redefinition project of "God's word" causes sinners to see that Christendom is a joke with "man's word" instead.

We even have a gay "God's word".

None of this existed until the 1900's.

Now, it is over. Even the Acts 2:38 upholders are multiversionists.

What a disaster.

 

[Truther]

What was found in a garbage can? And cite some sources. You really are brainwashed aren't you?

The Unreliability of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries

 

[reformed1689]

The Unreliability of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries

Yes more brainwashed trash. Do you even know what the "disagreements" are between the manuscripts? Have you any clue at all about what is or is not changed? Do you know not a single doctrine is changed? Do you realize that?

 

[Truther]

Yes more brainwashed trash. Do you even know what the "disagreements" are between the manuscripts? Have you any clue at all about what is or is not changed? Do you know not a single doctrine is changed? Do you realize that?

I gave you the info and you responded without reading it.

Typical multiversionist.

Also, they are attributing to the hundreds of new sects of Christendom that have their own custom made biased "word of God".

 

[Truther]

Read the article, not pound your fist on the keyboard....

Tischendorf gives his personal testimony:

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.9

Why would the monks of St. Catherine’s thrown out such a valuable manuscript? Perhaps because of it’s low quality transcription and it’s “heavily corrected text.”10 Concerning it’s sloppy penmanship, Burgon writes, “On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.11” His colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into detail:

Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament…Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.”12

 

[Truther]

Sinaiticus has also been corrected by “…at least ten revisers between the IVth and XIIth centuries…”13 The Codex Sinaiticus Project readily admits:

No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences. 14

 

[Truther]

Why would one of the top Bible scholars of his day make such remarks of manuscripts considered the “oldest and best” by others? Burgon had personally examined these two manuscripts, and noted that their text differed greatly form that of 95% of all manuscripts. When examining the Gospels as found in Vaticanus, Burgon found 7578 deviations from the majority, with 2370 of them being serious. In the Gospels of Sinaiticus, he found 8972 deviations, with 3392 serious ones.19 He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are found ONLY in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443.20 A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.

These two manuscript witnesses constantly disagree with the majority of the manuscript evidence, showing them to be suspect witnesses.

 

[Truther]

Therefore, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are worthless manuscripts. They display horrible penmanship, and have been subject to many correctors. They disagree with the vast majority of manuscript evidence, and even among each other. They are false witnesses of the Word of God. The text found therein is not the preserved Word of God, because it hasn’t been preserved. If it was the true Word of God, it would have been readily available to all generations. Burgon explains,

I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise [of preservation] has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.24

 

[reformed1689]

Read the article, not pound your fist on the keyboard....

Tischendorf gives his personal testimony:

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.9

Why would the monks of St. Catherine’s thrown out such a valuable manuscript? Perhaps because of it’s low quality transcription and it’s “heavily corrected text.”10 Concerning it’s sloppy penmanship, Burgon writes, “On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.11” His colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into detail:

Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament…Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.”12

Why were manuscripts thrown out? Because new copies had been made. That doesn't mean the ones thrown out were rejected. It means they were old and worn out. No longer in use.

 

[Truther]

The author concludes...


In these last days, Satan is doing everything in his power to prepare men for the great deception of the Antichrist. As Sinaiticus has been exalted in the public’s eye by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, I would not be surprised if Vaticanus is also exalted and placed online for all to see and venerate. These manuscripts may be the driving force to get “Protestants” to accept the Apocrypha as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, books so heretical that even the Roman Catholic Church does not accept them as Scripture. We need to be alert, and not fall for these manuscript idols. We also need to be aware that most Bible versions, other than the KJV, rely heavily on these manuscripts. The NKJV, while using the correct text, includes “alternate readings” from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the margin. (Such as “The oldest MSS. say…”) We need to reject these for the tried and true King James Version.

...which I can clearly see over the last 43 years.

 

[Truther]

Why were manuscripts thrown out? Because new copies had been made. That doesn't mean the ones thrown out were rejected. It means they were old and worn out. No longer in use.

They were thrown out as I posted. Read it.

 

[reformed1689]

They were thrown out as I posted. Read it.

I read what you wrote. Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. Quit being so brainwashed and quit being an idol worshipper.

 

[Truther]

Therefore, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are worthless manuscripts. They display horrible penmanship, and have been subject to many correctors. They disagree with the vast majority of manuscript evidence, and even among each other.


Your Bible comes from this group.

 

[Truther]

I read what you wrote. Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. Quit being so brainwashed and quit being an idol worshipper.

...emotional reaction...