Show what is the uncorrected true text of the Bible, God's Word, versus the lie of the Alexandian codices
Validity of Scripture, the Apocrypha versus the King James
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
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!
The Gnostics Alexadrian text is the corrupted codices as history shows, to say nothing of the missing and outright deletion found in it. Holt and Westcott were no true believers but hated God's Word found in the thousands of manuscripts and used these corrupted ones that are now spreading into the modern versions. Two streams of text, one true, one changed and missing text.. Not hard to see which is which..
Not really, but have gone through the background of these men and the history of these Alexandrian text. Need to read Dean Burgeons letters scorching the changes and deletions and their own letters showing their hate of core beliefs to say nothing of their manipulations of those in the committee who resisted the corruption they were trying to install.
That's a dogpile posing as gourmet food.
Just for starters, #1 is bogus. It's Semmler's deceptive theory of accommodation in action.
The idea of correcting the Bible, using a Greek dictionary or a Greek reference work, denies the doctrine of the pure preservation of scriptures. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” We know the originals were inspired. Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (emphasis mine). God promised to preserve his word in a pure form. The originals were pure and inspired; he promised to preserve those words for us, and so the Holy Bible (KJV) is still pure and it is still inspired, according to Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV).
We know the original paper is long gone. In Jeremiah 51:63, God commanded Jeremiah to throw his originals in the river. Therefore, it is evident that God is not concerned with preserving the originals. The promise of pure and perfect preservation extends to every word, not to the paper upon which they were written.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That is a very, very powerful God. But if God says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35) — what great care and power he must extend to those words.
Correcting the “word of God” with the words of men (Greek dictionaries) brings dishonor to our heavenly Father and his authority. Small wonder God’s children do not “tremble at his word” (Isa. 66:5). His bride continually corrects him in their presence with “a better reading would be...” or “the word should have been translated....” The Berean call was to “search the scriptures daily,” not to correct them. When the Bible refers to “scriptures,” as it does here in Acts 17:11, the reference is to copies, not original manuscripts. Consider 2 Timothy 3:15, “…from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures.” Neither Timothy, nor the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), who also read “the scriptures,” had the eight hundred year old original copy of the book of Isaiah.
If “the word” is in a Greek text only, then only the Greek-speaking churches could “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and only those fluent in Greek could be “born again by the word.” Acts 2:6 says, “[E]very man heard them speak in his own language.” I do not think that God is in the business of deceiving house-wives who do not have access to a library of Greek reference books. (First Corinthians 6:4 reminds us to “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.”) We can have confidence that “every word” in the King James Bible is the pure word of God.
Men such as Wycliffe and Coverdale, whom God entrusted to participate in the preservation of the scriptures, had a much higher view of our English Bibles than do today’s carnal ‘professors.’ Doubting Thomases, who must see the print on the originals, in their hands, call it ‘heresy’ to believe that God is powerful enough and cares enough about us to make certain that simple Christians can hold in their hands the inspired words of God. Both Coverdale and Wycliffe believed that the English Bible was just as inspired of the Holy Ghost as the ‘originals.
Wycliffe said,
“The clergy cry aloud that it is heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in English, and so they would condemn the Holy Ghost, who gave tongues to the Apostles of Christ to speak the word of God in all languages under heaven” (John Wycliffe, Speculum Secularium Dominorum, Opera Minora, London: Wycliffe Society, John Loserth, editor, 1913, p. 74, as cited in Bill Bradley, Purified Seven Times, Claysburg, PA: Revival Fires Publishing, 1998, p. 11).
Coverdale told critics,
“No, the Holy Ghost is as much the author of it in Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, and English, as in Latin” (W. Kenneth Connolly, The Indestructible Book, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996, p. 148).
The Bible states that it is alive! It is the very voice of God, speaking to each person. First Peter writes of “the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (1 Peter 1:23). The Bible is not the words of the Moses, Matthew, Paul, Peter, or the KJV translators; Paul said, “[W]hen ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thes. 2:13). The Bible refers to itself as the word (and words) of God.
And, as always, the uninformed hackneyed attempt to discredit follows like tails on a kite:
It's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games. Again, the Majority Text (e.g. the KJB) itself mentions several "translations!" Rather, the issue remains, do you believe God has kept his promise to preserve his pure word for ever (Psalm 12:6, 7)?
It is true that many KJV proponents do not fully understand the tenets of the position they claim to hold; they have not performed due diligence. This is where those to criticize the Holy Bible, aka textual critics, rule the day. Since those critics deny inspiration, all that remains for them is to argue over dead men’s bones -- an argument of which no born again believer should partake. And what a melee it is!
I am not “KJVO” -- never was. The recently invented “KJVO” label is a convenient strawman utilized by unsaved critics whose highest opinion is of themselves. They need someone to brow beat, lest they lose their perceived status and stuff...
God's preserved word was always his vernacular Bibles!
In keeping with his promise, God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bible has always 'come down from heaven ready-made' (as it were).
Sorry, critics, but the KJB text-type is not to be confused with today's KJ Bible. Today, as the vernacular Bible it is, the KJB is a relatively new arrival - not some forgone conclusion from antiquity i.e. it wasn't the 1611 KJB that "was translated by Greek & Hebrew scholars into the English language of their day." Thus, it shares no connection with men's copyrighted counterfeit "modern versions" of today.
The antiquity of the KJV text-type is evidenced in Joseph Bosworth's Parallel Gospels. It includes the Gothic version dated before A.D. 360, the Anglo-Saxon version dated between A.D. 600 and 900, the Wycliffe translation dated 1381, and the Tyndale dated 1526. Comparing them with the King James Version and the new versions quickly shows that the King James is the text-type that has been used historically by the church as far back as the Gothic period, dated before A.D. 360.
Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version.
Last edited:
If you study your history it is well know that the Received Text or the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) has thousands of manuscripts and was translated into a old Latin version before Jeromes Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible.
The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text, and you can see the timeline straight from the original.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Masoretic Text
1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
THE NEW TESTAMENT
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Pesh*tta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible...
I like the way John’s prologue in his Gospel are translated in Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, The Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.
I like the Geneva Bible as well and use that to compare as those translators were very careful in their work.
Similar threads
