A Taste of the Actual 1611 KJV

[CoreIssue]

Many believe the KJV they use today is identical to the 1611 or just the 1611 with updates to more modern languages along the way.

That simply is not true.

Here is are some tastes of the actual 1611 copied over from an old forum script:
Page One (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/oldboardposts/kjv1611_1.mht)
Page Two (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/oldboardposts/kjv1611_2.mht)

It does not take long to see there have been radical changes, including the dropping of Books of the Apocrapha from its content.

[Neachley]

Oh please! The apocrypha was never accepted as scripture by the translators of the King James Bible. If you look carefully it was only included between the two testaments for this reason. In later printings, it was dropped.

And yes, type faces changed and spelling was standardized, but there are no errors in the KJB.

[CoreIssue]

Those books were most assuredly included as PART of the KJV. Don't try to wiggle around that fact.

And far more than standardizing spelling changes have occured. But I will post to that in the other thread you made comments on.

[TLIR]

I have read several different versions. I find that God can use every one I have read to speak to the sincere seeker. If I had one version to be left on a deserted island with I personally would choose the King James Version (KJV). But at this time in my life I read mostly the New Living Translation (NLT) and recommend it to anyone who is a new convert because of its easy readability, or to the tired Christian who needs a fresh word.
If I could choose the best, I would prefer to know and understand the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their original language but that is not an option at this time.

Sincerely,

Arthur, TLIR

[CoreIssue]

My choice would be the NIV or NASB. Would be happy with either.

And most assuredly, being able to read in the ancient Hebrew and Greek would be the absolute best!:nod:

Then one would have to pick the mansuscripts! Not the Majority family. Those came from the RCC.

[conan]

And most assuredly, being able to read in the ancient Hebrew and Greek would be the absolute best!:nod:

Amen!

Then one would have to pick the mansuscripts! Not the Majority family. Those came from the RCC.

Now that is absoloutly not true. It was the Latin Vulgate that was the Bible of the RCC, who was Latin speaking. The Majority of Greek manuscripts were from Constanople, which were Greek speaking.

[PeterAV]

Many believe the KJV they use today is identical to the 1611 or just the 1611 with updates to more modern languages along the way.

That simply is not true.

Here is are some tastes of the actual 1611 copied over from an old forum script:
Page One (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/oldboardposts/kjv1611_1.mht)
Page Two (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/oldboardposts/kjv1611_2.mht)

It does not take long to see there have been radical changes, including the dropping of Books of the Apocrapha from its content.
*******
Say what?
O yes it is true.
Just because you hold edward as your final authority does not make the AV wrong.
By this man's logic;
If I can only get MORE that one authority.
That way,showing two or more authorities,then I can be the arbiture and pick and choose what I prefer.
He has taught you well.Now you "prefer" the NIV or the NASB,both of which are corrupted by heretics.
Modern language aside,the AV is of a modern English.It yet used and understood my many.
In fact,many common terms comes straight from the AV.
Just because the AV translators used a couple words that were archaic even to them, to make sure to get the best translation does not mean that it is in error.

You are stretching it there,big time.
This edward is only making sure he can pin two varient readings against each other to place doubt in the pure Holy Bible.
That is how they all do it.This way they can play god just like EVE did and so they become official "EVITES" as it were.

This way HE can be the one in the place of final authority.Come,and sit at MY feet.
$$ is the motivation of the NIV.Why would they knowingly hire a female lesbian?And it WAS knowingly.They knew of her antics as far back as the fifties.
Ya,they are not innocent like they say.I have a photo-coppied letter by Virginia in her own hand writing to prove that they are not ignorant of her sexual orientation.
Choose arbitrarily what suits them best even if is is against God's very words.Become gods and play the game of "I PREFER".

Neachely is completely right.The Translators did not insert the Apocrapha into the cannon,but they were inserted into the covers inbetween the two Testaments of Scripture.
Plus the Anglicans reject the Apocrapha as conanical.
But the modern versions are being dishonest with you,for the manuscripts that they use have those very Apocraphal books interspersed right into the cannon,making you think that they are part of the canon.Just like The ending of Daniel and many other places.

The AV have them inbetween just like Scofield's notes.No diferent than the maps or other materials.
This edwards is desparate to get the marginal notes and readings to be on par with what they[translators] considered the best reading .
Like the AV translators decided to put the weakest readings in the canon,ya right.
It is the NIV crew and others that are interested in the varient readings,do you know why?So they can make money.They need to be divergent to be able to get the copyright.

The catholics wanted the Apocrapha in the text.But King James made sure not to have any infiltration from the catholic readings into the Text.So they put guards around.That way no pro-catholic could change or insert corrupted readings into the text.
The catholics had to settle with getting the Apocraphs at least into the covers of the Bible.
But now they have lost.They are trying desparately to get the catholic readings back into the bible still and are now influencing every modern version out there that does not cater strickly to the AV standard.They want to ussurp the final authority.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

[CoreIssue]

Now that is absoloutly not true. It was the Latin Vulgate that was the Bible of the RCC, who was Latin speaking. The Majority of Greek manuscripts were from Constanople, which were Greek speaking.

Nope. The Majority Text cannot be found in the Greek.

Meaning there is no Greek manuscript containing the changes introduced by the RCC. And no manuscript in any language containing them before 400 AD.

Read for yourself (http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm). This is said in many way by many scholars and historians. It is not a debatable issue.

Not debatable, meaning one can claim all is part of Greek manuscripts, but they cannot cite any manuscript evidence to back their claim.

And the Vulgate most assuredly was key to the prior Bibles and such that the KJV was based upon.

[CoreIssue]

PeterAV,

A simply way for you to prove your point. Give me a link to the more ancient manuscripts containing the words and such of the KJV that you call altered by heretics.

All you are doing is espousing empty rhetoric at the moment.

You made a claim. No provide the proof.

And yea, I recognize the copy and paste arguments from KJV Only sites. So, please don't just post more of it as if it proof.

Remember our Golden Forum Rule. Don't preach. Provide proof for your claims.

I have. History and total lack of manuscript evidence for your position.

No. The KJV is not the oldest Bible in use. Other Bibles were used longer than the KJV has been, to date, prior to it even being written. And some are still in use by some.

Don't mean to be impolite in a first post. But I know where you are coming from and calling people who don't use the KJV heretic and unsaved is a rediculous habit of many KJV Only believers. And why they have earned the label 'cult' by many.

Please back your claims with evidence. :D

[conan]

Nope. The Majority Text cannot be found in the Greek.

Meaning there is no Greek manuscript containing the changes introduced by the RCC. And no manuscript in any language containing them before 400 AD.

Read for yourself (http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm). This is said in many way by many scholars and historians. It is not a debatable issue.

Not debatable, meaning one can claim all is part of Greek manuscripts, but they cannot cite any manuscript evidence to back their claim.

And the Vulgate most assuredly was key to the prior Bibles and such that the KJV was based upon.

Oh come on CoreIssue, your own link confirmed exactly what I said.
From your link...


What is meant by the Byzantine Text?
Shortly before A.D. 400 the Roman empire was divided into two parts, the western Roman empire and the eastern or Byzantine empire. Within a century after this division the western empire came to an end, and western Europe sank into a state of near barbarism. The Byzantine empire continued, though often in a greatly weakened state, until A.D. 1453. For about a thousand years, the Greek language was completely unknown in western Europe, but remained the official language of the Byzantine empire. During this time both portions of the former Roman empire contained many monasteries in which the monks were required to do a certain amount of work each day. One way to fulfill this work requirement was to copy manuscripts. In the western monasteries Latin manuscripts, including the Latin Bible, were copied and recopied by the monks. In the Byzantine monasteries Greek manuscripts were copied, including copies of the Greek Bible.

[CoreIssue]

Oh come on CoreIssue, your own link confirmed exactly what I said.
From your link...

Quote:

What is meant by the Byzantine Text?
Shortly before A.D. 400 the Roman empire was divided into two parts, the western Roman empire and the eastern or Byzantine empire. Within a century after this division the western empire came to an end, and western Europe sank into a state of near barbarism. The Byzantine empire continued, though often in a greatly weakened state, until A.D. 1453. For about a thousand years, the Greek language was completely unknown in western Europe, but remained the official language of the Byzantine empire. During this time both portions of the former Roman empire contained many monasteries in which the monks were required to do a certain amount of work each day. One way to fulfill this work requirement was to copy manuscripts. In the western monasteries Latin manuscripts, including the Latin Bible, were copied and recopied by the monks. In the Byzantine monasteries Greek manuscripts were copied, including copies of the Greek Bible.

It proves my point that the KJV is based on manuscripts that were Latin, under the control of Rome and altered.

Whether you like what is said here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html) or not, the graph is great for making the point the manuscripts you are praising did not exist before 400 AD.

And yet, here, in this thread, are declarations they are the source of the True Bible.

WHERE are the Majority Text manuscripts prior to 400 AD? Non-existant.

The issue is not whether the KJV is Bible. The issue is the KJV Only foundationless claim it is THE Bible.

And also the point that there is no reason to use a Bible for study that is less accurate in translation. Especially when written in archaic English.

[conan]

It proves my point that the KJV is based on manuscripts that were Latin, under the control of Rome and altered.


So, there was no Protestant Reformation? No disrepect intended, but you have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. Because you are saying the Protestant Reformation was based on the Latin Vulgate, which is non-sense and unhistorical.

[conan]

Again, from your own sources. I took the liberty of underlining the part that proves my point, from your sources.

380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It continues to be the authoritative translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The Protestant Reformation saw an increase in translations of the Bible into the common languages of the people.

[conan]

Again I have taken this from your source, and underlined.

1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament was printed for the first time by Erasmus. He based his Greek New Testament from only five Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus Receptus or the "received texts."

1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations.

[CoreIssue]

The Majority Text was not an ancient manuscript! It was a created text, as the article says! The manuscripts it was compiled from did not exist prior to 400 AD.

The KJV was NOT an original translation. The author errors there or misspoke.

The KJV was a complilation Bible from past Bibles edited through the scope of the Majority Text.

You are refusing to see the facts.

Erasmus included the scribes notes into his creation. And where there were blanks he filled them in.

The manuscripts are called Byzantine because that was where they were created. They were NOT direct copies of older manuscripts.

You refuse to acknowledge that point.

I can do the quote what I want as well. Read this (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.html).
When speaking of the Textus Receptus, one must remember that it is a printed text, not a hand-copied manuscript. It was the Greek text available to translators during the time of the Reformation.
The KJV used it because it was the only material available to them. The other found manuscripts were locked away in Rome. They did not allow them to be used.

Further, the even older manuscripts, dataing back to the time of the Apostles and soon after were not found until much later.

Note the articles says that even at that time the scholars new there were problems with the Majority Text.
The text type of the Textus Receptus is known as the Byzantine because it came from the geographical area around Constantinople.
It is a print type that has its orgins around Constantiople at the hands of the Catholics.

That makes it very clear it did not exist prior. And the scribe and such notes making it into the text is called error. Catholic based error.
A characteristic of this text type was the inclusion of additional words in the text itself due to scribal notes. If the above is not sufficient to cause confusion, there is the additional fact that there were several editions of the Textus Receptus.
Added words. So much for the claim the modern translations from far older manuscripts deleted words.
Working at breakneck speed, Erasmus gathered together what Greek manuscripts he could locate in Basle. He was able to collect five, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century.
12th century. 5. Add in the scribes notes.

Wow! What scholarship.
They examined the Erasmanian edition carefully and noted the absence of 1 John 1:7, a verse upholding the doctrine of the Trinity, although it was included in the Latin Vulgate. This was a serious charge and Erasmus rashly promised that he would include it in the next edition of his New Testament if manuscript evidence were provided. A manuscript with the verse was located and Erasmus printed it in his third edition that was published in 1522.
Erasmus published two other editions, in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work.
And he messed it up big time on top of that.
The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years.
Errors and all.

But I will defend the KJV in this way. They tried to get it right. Sincerely.

They produced a good Bible, for its day. Errors and all.

But it is not THE Bible. Not even the most accurate Bible out there.

I came to Christ using it. But study was more than difficult with it because I found problems and doctrines, based on it, that did not make sense when compared to the rest of the Bible.
It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position.
Why and how did it loose its position?
We do not have space to trace the entire history of the Textus Receptus. It received criticism from the time of its first printing. With the discovery of older manuscripts, considered superior to the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus, the Textus Receptus no longer holds the first place in the estimation of most Greek scholars.
Scholars saw it had errors from the beginning. Some were corrected over time but most were not.

Scholars recognize the older manuscripts are superior. And they are not a merger of texts with margin notes included.
One of the characteristics of the Textus Receptus is that it tended to add words that many people considered to be notes or glosses made by scribes. Over a period of time, these glosses became part of the text. Later editions of the Greek New Testament, including the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, have shown that many of these were not part of the original text.
I agree with the auther here.
The King James Bible is considered by many to be the crown of English Bibles. Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Greek text used in preparing the King James Bible was the Textus Receptus. We should be grateful to God for providing a competent Greek text from which these heroes of the faith could translate the Word of God.
Competent but not fully accurate. That is the issue.

And the archaic English is a problem. Plain and simple.

It is a Bible. It has done well. But, as CTZ stated, its time has come and gone.

We have more accurate Bibles, now, that eliminate those issues, I mentioned, where things said in places were in contradiction or conflict with the rest of the Bible.

What not use what is the best while honoring the KJV?

And I forget who said it, but if they read here, the KJV is most assuredly copyrighted and people do most assuredly make money off of it.

And the formulation of the Marority Text used in the KJV was rushed to print to make money. Another bad argument.

[conan]

It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position. Why and how did it loose its position?

One indeed wonders!

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK
ACCORDING TO THE
BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html


New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority

Maurice A. Robinson

[CoreIssue]

It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position.

One indeed wonders!

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK
ACCORDING TO THE
BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM

From the article:
For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.[6 (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html#FN6)] This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. In the remaining one-fifth of the Greek New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform represents the pattern of readings found in the Greek manuscripts predominating during the 1000-year Byzantine era.
That includes the manuscrpts on non-Byzantine origin. The OLDER manuscripts.

The Byzantine Era did not even begin until 330 AD. None of the manuscripts talked about here existed before about 400 AD. And early Catholicism dominated the Byzantine Empire.

The remaining one-fifth is the margin notes and such added upon the creation of the Textus Receptus. And the source of the issue here, as in the added words, verses and such to the KJV not found prior.

The poor translation of many words is also an issue for the KJV. And the archaic English.
Early printed editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a general agreement with the Byzantine-era manuscripts upon which they were based. Such manuscripts and early printed editions are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the term applied to the Elzevir 1624 printed Greek edition. Other editions commonly termed "Textus Receptus" include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598. George Ricker Berry has correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."[7 (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html#FN7)]
Note the dates. What is defined as Textus Receptus. None are hand copied manuscripts. All are compilation documents that added in margin notes. and not existing until the 1500s.
All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely paralleled (but were not identical with) the text which underlies the English-language King James or Authorized Version of 1611. That version was based closely upon the Greek text of Beza 1598, which differed but little from its Textus Receptus predecessors or from the derived text of the few Byzantine manuscripts upon which those editions were based. Nevertheless, neither the early English translations nor the early printed Greek New Testaments reflected a perfect agreement with the predominant Byzantine/Majority Textform, since no single manuscript or small group of manuscripts is 100% identical with the aggregate form of that text.
Again, the KJV is not an original translation. It is based upon prior Bibles who are based upon Byzantine texts that do not agree with each other. Not to mention those added margin and footnotes to the text over time.

Clearly the Textus Receptus is not as accurate as older manuscripts that pre-date Catholicism.
The "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional Text") predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts -- a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516).
Even they admit the Byzantine texts did not even begin to appear until 350 AD.

And, as you will see later, there is a distinction between othe Majority Text and the Textus Recptus.

This statistical fact has led some simply to refer to this Textform as the "Majority Text." This misnomer, however, gives a false impression regarding the amount of agreement to be found among Byzantine manuscripts where places of variation occur. No two Byzantine-era manuscripts are exactly alike, and there are a good number of places where the testimony of the Byzantine-era manuscripts is substantially divided. In such places, the archetypical "Byzantine Textform" must be established from principles other than that of "number" alone.

Yep. They don't agree, often not even close.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html


New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority

Maurice A. Robinson
And again the admission of not before 400 AD and Byzantine.

Byantine was founded by Constatine the Great, Roman Emporer, with his form of Christianity the State Religion. Meaning Catholic. With the Empire dominating the church and scribes who produced the Majority Text from which came the Textus Receptus.

And stragely, while embracing these Catholic controlled documents other manuscripts are rejected by KJV people because they were from Western Catholic areas.

Can we say contradiction?

Finally, on another page from the first author we see him saying this:
This was noteworthy; until this time, the Byzantine text had been treated as a monolithic unity (and not distinguished from its corrupt descendent, the Textus Receptus. (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html) There are in fact over 1500 places where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text, some of them -- e.g. the placement of the Doxology of Romans -- quite significant).
While, as stated, most lump the term Textus Receptus and Majority Text, as the same thing, they do not.

I have done this as well. And this stimulates a need for consideration by myself.

But the point here is that what is being said is the original Greek texts that came under Byzantine control were corupted into the Textus Receptus.

Again, the issues of margin and footnotes blended in the texts that became the KJV.

Plainly said from a scholarly source you presented. Corrupted.

But as he said in your link, the KJV is still defensible, as a Bible, as long as one knows of the errors.

Which is exactly my point. And which now brings into question its use when there are other, more accurate, Bibles out there.

[conan]

Which is exactly my point. And which now brings into question its use when there are other, more accurate, Bibles out there.

Always more accurate? Or sometimes more accurate? What percentages of accuracy? Are the more accurate Bibles that you recommend always improvements, or do they sometimes introduce errors when the KJV had it right?

[conan]

BTW, thanks for taking the time to read the links!

[CoreIssue]

Always more accurate? Or sometimes more accurate? What percentages of accuracy? Are the more accurate Bibles that you recommend always improvements, or do they sometimes introduce errors when the KJV had it right?
To judge accuracy you must:

Take into account age on the Majority Texts. They are a compilation of five Greek manuscripts. The compliation was not made until 400 AD and after. It was an evolving compilation. The Textus Receptus did not come into existence until the 1500s. And it is absolutely known to not agree 100% with the Majority Textx from which it was developed. The KJV came from the Textus Receptus. So it does not take much of an exercise in logic and deductive reasoning to dismiss it as the most accurate out there. History makes that abundantly clear it is not. To say Byzantine texts is to say Catholic.
As for the family broadly known as Alexandrian, they date back to 125 AD. At least 250 years before the Majority Text even began to be compiled. And there was no Catholic Church then, only it initial beginnings. So, yes, that needs to be considered, which includes seeing a far more mature, yet still developing Catholicism, in 400 AD. In 313 AD Constantine adopted Christianity and inserted Roman authority into the Church. And after this is when the messing with the manuscripts began by the Romans. Until then Christians were persecuted, not embraced, by the Romans. And yes, during the time around 100 AD on a lot of Gnosis and other heresies arose. But the Romans declaring what Christianity was and what the real doctrines were was not an improvement. They bowed to the Sun, in example, as being the Son.
So we must be careful with all manuscripts. But yes, the older manuscripts, as a group, were less tainted than the Byzantine ones. And where we absolutely know that scribes notes got included into their texts we should acknowledge that and remove those errors. And that is where my problems come with the KJV Only and those who espouse the KJV as superior. These additions were know from the first printing of the KJV. And they are still there. And there are gross mistranslations of words in the KJV.
Finally, I do not believe, without more proof, there are any 100% pure manuscripts currently in anyone's known posession. But we most assuredly know some are more pure than others. And we most assuredly know there are problems with the Textus Receptus and Majority Texts.My question to you is why use a Bible with such known issues? And written in a form of English we don't even speak today?

With that said, I cross reference the NIV and NASB, mainly. And do a lot of look ups of word definitions in the Greek and Hebrew.

[CoreIssue]

BTW, thanks for taking the time to read the links!
You are most welcome. :D

I always look for gains in knowledge. And I did gain a better understanding of the distinctions between Majority Texts and Textus Receptus.

This isn't an easy issue. I undertand that.

[PeterAV]

Heretics and unsaved?That is not on this thread.You must have it mixed up with somewhere else.

[CoreIssue]

Heretics and unsaved?That is not on this thread.You must have it mixed up with somewhere else.
You said:
He has taught you well.Now you "prefer" the NIV or the NASB,both of which are corrupted by heretics.

A heretic is unsaved, are they not?

And corrupted? Truly a stance taken by KJV Onliests who cannot defend their position the KJV is the only true Bible.

Please answer the challenge to your negative proof claim on the other thread. That will deal with this issue as well.

So far you have said nothing but KJV Only rhetoric.

[conan]

I always look for gains in knowledge. And I did gain a better understanding of the distinctions between Majority Texts and Textus Receptus.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html The Majority Text collated against the Received Text

This isn't an easy issue. I undertand that.

The first thing that you have confused is the Greek with the Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek, and was the cause for the Protestent Reformation. The Roman Catholic Text for 1000 years was/is the Latin Vulgate, and was a point of contention between the Roman Catholics verse the Christian Reformers. William Tyndale was the first to translate directly from the Greek and Hebrew to English, and was put to death for it. One of the Attacks by the R.C. against Tyndale was he mistranslated the Text, when the real difference was between the Original Greek vs the Latin Language Vulgate. Unfortunetly your sources wanting to sell their Bibles and products told you there is no use for the KJV, for that is what they are really competing against for your dollar. I have no gripe about the need for modern translations, but when they do not tell the whole story, or misslead younger believers, that should be opposed.

[conan]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

What is the Difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html#erasmus1516). They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type). I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Conan, greetings. Allow me to point out a couple of things here.
Tis important that our facts be properly contextualized :-)

They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. These "small number" of manuscripts are homogeneous with about 95% plus (not just a 'plurality') of the Greek manuscripts. Anybody with a little math/statistics/probability savvy knows that when you have a homogeneous pool, a relatively small number will give a good, solid representation.

These critical texts ..agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. :): .. however they don't really agree with each other at all. They are widely and wildly defuse. eg. The differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Bezae and Alexandrius are humoungous, and the first three are abjectly corrupt manuscripts (the middle two the most) in terms of scribal integrity. Like real stupid scribe tricks, doubling and missing and crossing out. In a sane textual world oddball and corrupt manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Bezae would be little more than curiousities.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Hi, Conan,

I fixed your links. Both had two http// in the front. That won't link.
The Majority Text collated against the Received Text
And the justification for such changes were? There are serious differences there from a point of accurate translations.
The first thing that you have confused is the Greek with the Latin.
I have confusd nothing in this issue.
The New Testament was written in Greek, and was the cause for the Protestent Reformation.
Off topic. Study Luther's supported NT before you try to go this route. He had serious errors. This is not proof for the KJV. In fact portions of the Vulgate were included in the TR and ended up in the KJV.
The Roman Catholic Text for 1000 years was/is the Latin Vulgate, and was a point of contention between the Roman Catholics verse the Christian Reformers.
Yep. And remains not a proof for the TR or Majority Text.
William Tyndale was the first to translate directly from the Greek and Hebrew to English, and was put to death for it. One of the Attacks by the R.C. against Tyndale was he mistranslated the Text, when the real difference was between the Original Greek vs the Latin Language Vulgate.
Not correct.
Tyndale (http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html)
1525 William Tyndale’s New Testament is completed. His translation is based on the Latin vulgate, Erasmus Greek and the original Greek manuscripts. His wording and sentence structures are found in most modern day translations of the Bible.
Tyndale was committed to taking the Bible directly to the people. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale said that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even a ploughboy to know more about Holy Scripture than the Pope himself. By August of 1525 his translation of the New Testament was complete. Printing began at Cologne, but when the authorities forbade the project, Tyndale escaped to Worms, where 6,000 copies were printed and sold in England by April of 1526. Official opposition in England led to the destruction of most of these early copies.
Tyndale's English work is similar to that of Martin Luther. Although he used Luther's German translation, Tyndale also drew upon the Latin Vulgate as well as Erasmus' Greek text. Ninety percent of the New Testament in the King James Version (KJV) is Tyndale's translation. By the same token, where the KJV departed from Tyndale's wording, the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 went back to it. Without question, this first printed English New Testament is the basis of all future works of translation.


The KJV Only group just refuse to study accurate history.

Unfortunetly your sources wanting to sell their Bibles and products told you there is no use for the KJV, for that is what they are really competing against for your dollar. I have no gripe about the need for modern translations, but when they do not tell the whole story, or misslead younger believers, that should be opposed.


You are not posting any proof for the KJV. I don't see any accurate manuscript history, just rhetoric.

Nor do I see any recognition the Majority Texts came into being under Catholicism. Because it was Eastern Catholicism makes it no less Catholicism.

Please post mansucript datings prior to 400 AD. Where were these manuscripts prior?

I suggest they were probably Catholic altered Alexandrian Family.

[CoreIssue]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

What is the Difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html#erasmus1516).
Erasmus relied heavily upon the Vulgate. And really made a ton of errors. Plus, he sure was not a Protestant. He was an ordained Catholic Priest.

As shown in the other links, prior, the RT is corrupted.

The link agrees with those points. And yet you are here still promoting the RT as the most accurate?
They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts.
Yep. Late comers. Not old Greek at all.
The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text.
Again, late creations, not old manuscripts. My point exactly, which is more potent when considered created under Catholicism.
They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years.
Why? Catholic creations is why.
These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text.
Older manuscripts do not agree with these Catholic creations.
And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type);
Byantine (Catholic) Empire.
and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type).
Before Catholicism even existed.

I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case.

Bad statement.

Of course one would expect the oldest manuscripts to be found more heavily closer to the point of origin. That being Israel.

And the Byzantine ones are products of the Catholic Byzantine scribes.

The Byantine ones have no older manuscripts because they are the older Alexandrian ones altered. None exist before 400 AD, which conveniently are in the first few decades of establishing the Byzantine Empire. Meaning brought with them and further changed.

[CoreIssue]

Hi Conan, greetings. Allow me to point out a couple of things here.
Tis important that our facts be properly contextualized :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by conan
They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts.

These "small number" of manuscripts are homogeneous with about 95% plus (not just a 'plurality') of the Greek manuscripts. Anybody with a little math/statistics/probability savvy knows that when you have a homogeneous pool, a relatively small number will give a good, solid representation.
True.

But there is a but here. That 95% agreement does not justify ebracing known additions and errors as in the KJV based on the Received Text where the source of the errors, often Erasamus, is a known fact.

Nor does it overcome the archaic English.

This argument in and of itself says it is better to use the modern English. After all, there is 95% agreement.

Really, this is not an argument saying sue the KJV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by conan
These critical texts ..agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text.

:): .. however they don't really agree with each other at all. They are widely and wildly defuse. eg. The differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Bezae and Alexandrius are humoungous, and the first three are abjectly corrupt manuscripts (the middle two the most) in terms of scribal integrity. Like real stupid scribe tricks, doubling and missing and crossing out. In a sane textual world oddball and corrupt manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Bezae would be little more than curiousities.
Really a bad argument for using the KJV.

We KNOW the chief authors of the KJV. We KNOW they used the Vulgate as part of the RT. We KNOW margin and footnotes were rolled into the text.

Where are the supposed original Greek manuscripts used to formulate the Majority Texts? We don't KNOW. Or do we know in fact, that they came from the Alexandrian Texts you are dismissing?

Yep. They had to. We can look at the regions at the time of the Apostles and soon after to know the farthest extent of their writing distribution. And that is the area of the Alexandrian Texts.

I don't hear any KJV Only even attempting to lay down the manuscript lineage prior to 400 AD. Curious indeed.

Your statements do nothing to address those know facts and problems. It just attempts to run over and dismiss them.

Manuscript research is far more complex than you are trying to paint here.
Where did not the supposed original Byzantine Greek manuscripts come from?
Really, if the source of the Majority Text then they would not have been destroyed. A truly bad argument to say the scribes copied then destroyed them.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Core,

Thanks for your comments. For a number of reasons, I really do not see much of a dialog possible here.

Let me ask you a simple question, though.

Is there any Bible, in any language at all (English, Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, Latin .. or some combo) that you would place in your hands and say

"this is the perfect, pure, inspired word of God ?

Thank you.
And please, an essay response is not necessary, as the question is very simple and straightforward.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Hi, Steven,

Hi Core,

Thanks for your comments. For a number of reasons, I really do not see much of a dialog possible here.

Let me ask you a simple question, though.

Is there any Bible, in any language at all (English, Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, Latin .. or some combo) that you would place in your hands and say

"this is the perfect, pure, inspired word of God ?

Depends on how you mean it.

If you mean identical to the original autographs, no.

But that does not mean we need to embrace versions with known translation errors and additions from Catholicism, either. Or trying to read in archaic English.
Thank you.
And please, an essay response is not necessary, as the question is very simple and straightforward.
A point for you to consider.

The Byzantine texts came from the Alexandrian. They did not exist before 400 AD.

Why embrace writing with known creation dates with known roll ins of scribes' margin and footnotes? Known inclusions from the Vulgate, in example? Know very bad translations coming from doctine and not the Greek and Hebrew? And archaic English we do not even use today?

That is why I cross reference and use an interlinear.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Core,

ok, that is the core issue.

You have no inspired and perfect Bible, you just wing it with some here and some there.
About the only thing you are sure of is that you don't like the King James Bible and the Received Text. What is the pure, preserved Bible, the word of God ... you simply dunno.

=============
As to your claim

The Byzantine texts came from the Alexandrian. On this I would strongly disagree. Even before the discovery of the papyri this very strange view that the church in Antioch depended on oddball Egyptian manuscripts (with its attendant fantasy, the supposed "Lucian recension"), was strongly refuted, especially by Burgon and Hoskier.

Today we know that Byzantine readings are well represented in early church writers and even, surprisingly, Egyptian fragments.

An excellent example of a very important Byzantine reading would be 1 Timothy 3:16 where lots of early church writers have "God is manifest in the flesh". Another would be the ending of Mark, amply represented in the early church, yet sorta lacking in the alexandrian manuscripts. And the modern versions usually put the ending in, even though they actually believe it is not true scripture, not caring about the command to not add to God's word.

Anyway, I can see how, if you really believe that the alexandrian text is the true source, the fountainhead, (that those couple of horridly scribally-corrupt manuscripts left languishing in the Egyptian desert represent God's preservation in action, from the home of gnosticism), then you would have to reject the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible.

Your position is understandable, based on what you believe about the original text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Hi Core,

ok, that is the core issue.

You have no inspired and perfect Bible, you just wing it with some here and some there.
About the only thing you are sure of is that you don't like the King James Bible and the Received Text. What is the pure, preserved Bible, the word of God ... you simply dunno.
And you do? God told you so, I guess?

Where was this perfect Bible of yours for the prior 1600 years? Didn't exit? The KJV authors rebuilit it?

Just a little point you KJV Only folk skirt over and avoid totally.

Your position says there was no real Bible before 1611. Not even true manuscripts since the RT is a document of divergent merged texts.

I don't dislike the KJV. I used it for years. But I am not blind to its problems, either.


=============
As to your claim


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
The Byzantine texts came from the Alexandrian.

On this I would strongly disagree. Even before the discovery of the papyri this very strange view that the church in Antioch depended on oddball Egyptian manuscripts (with its attendant fantasy, the supposed "Lucian recension"), was strongly refuted, especially by Burgon and Hoskier.
How conveniet to only refer Antioch. As if that was the holder of all manuscripts. And the source of all thinking.

And how strange you would back Erasamus.

There is much more to the so-called Alexandrian manuscripts than this one narrow issue or localized source. Especially pre-dating the Catholic Church.
Today we know that Byzantine readings are well represented in early church writers and even, surprisingly, Egyptian fragments.
That is false. A KJVO argument that is rejected by scholars.

The Byzantine readings came from the Alexandrian. Rediculous to try to lay Byzantine onto things before the Byzantine even existed.
An excellent example of a very important Byzantine reading would be 1 Timothy 3:16 where lots of early church writers have "God is manifest in the flesh". Another would be the ending of Mark, amply represented in the early church, yet sorta lacking in the alexandrian manuscripts. And the modern versions usually put the ending in, even though they actually believe it is not true scripture, not caring about the command to not add to God's word.
Again, a false argument. You cannot have Byzantine before Byzantine even existed.
Anyway, I can see how, if you really believe that the alexandrian text is the true source, the fountainhead, (that those couple of horridly scribally-corrupt manuscripts left languishing in the Egyptian desert represent
Really? All the manuscripts came from the Egyptian desert? Hmmmm. You need to study more.
God's preservation in action, from the home of gnosticism),
And there were not God's faithful in Egypt? There was not Gnosis in Israel and Rome, in example?

Again, you need to study more.
then you would have to reject the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible.
Let me see. The TR is the early Church Bible, yet it did not come into existence until the 1500s. And it is Byzantine, when the Byantine Empire was not even formed until 330 AD

Yep, your history is very inaccurate.

Your position is understandable, based on what you believe about the original text.
There is the distinction. My beliefs are based on manuscripts and history. Yours is based on faith in the KJV.

The KJV is not the first compiled Bible. It is built from prior ones with some review of the TR. But the TR is build from the MSS. And the MSS original Greek manuscripts supposedly used to build it just conveniently do not exist anywhere, in copy or otherwise.

Hmmm. That is because the MSS was developed from the the so-called Alexandrian. So the manuscripts used do still exist. Just not in the form KJV people want to own up to.

This is not a simple issue. There is the manuscript tree, where some copies veered off into the Gnosis issues.

But those issues were long ago recognized, rejected and moved around.

Other manuscript veered into developing Catholicism. And there we find the Byzantine and Roman problems.

But contrary to what many think, not all manuscripts were controlled by Gnostics or Catholics.

So the manuscript issues are very broad and complex. Then kick in the writing of the early theologians, most assuredly many were not Catholic, which gives non-manuscript information on the issues.

We have to weigh out what we know. And that means your dismissal of issues with the MSS and TR, simply declaring the KJV THE Bible, carries no weight as evidence.

[CoreIssue]

Let me add a note here.

The key foundation for the KJVO folk is the time the KJV was the most popular Bible. So time = proof.

Which is nonsense.

The Tyndale and Wycliff Bibles are still used. And they a lot older.

Then there is the Vulgate. Another very old Bible.

Point being, popularity and age are not proofs. Especially when the time from the Apostles to the KJV, being 1600 years, is 1200 years more than the entire life of the KJV.

So, just maybe, the form being an organized book or individual letters and books is not the point at all.

Of course I prefer the bound, chaptered and verse.

But that does not justify speaking as if the Bible begins and ends with the KJV. That says there was no 'Bible' before 1611.

[conan]

Hi, Conan,

I fixed your links. Both had two http// in the front. That won't link.

Thanks CoreIssue!

And the justification for such changes were? There are serious differences there from a point of accurate translations.

You had said you wanted to learn more, I was just showing you the difference's. No two handwritten manuscripts are exactly alike. As you know the Bible was written well before the printing press was invented.


I have confusd nothing in this issue.

Your source was lowsy, and wrong when describing William Tyndales work, which was/is the most important in English History. Everything else looked ok, except his statements on Wycliffe. He had no first hand knowledge on early Bibles. A decent timeline, but it contians mistakes, which will misslead some, such as yourself.

His first mistake was saying that Tyndale completed the New Testament in 1525, and the dude put Latin Vulgate before The Greek Text of Erasmus. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1525 he was publishing his New Testament, but the authorities found out and they had to take what was printed and flee, so in 1525 only Matthew circulated. It was in 1526 that his first New Testament was completed, and he revised in 1534 1535 and 1536. I realize the author did not mean to mislead, and current Scholars try to clear up the misunderstandings.

Off topic. Study Luther's supported NT before you try to go this route. He had serious errors. This is not proof for the KJV. In fact portions of the Vulgate were included in the TR and ended up in the KJV.

I was trying to correct some misunderstandings, that are probably my fault. There were a very few places that Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate, because his only Greek Manuscript was damaged at the end. In John's letters there was one place and another in Acts, only a tiny bit. All of these few places are well known.




The KJV Only group just refuse to study accurate history.

I am not KJV Only, but you are mixed up about somethings, and I am just trying to clarify.

You are not posting any proof for the KJV. I don't see any accurate manuscript history, just rhetoric.

Nor do I see any recognition the Majority Texts came into being under Catholicism. Because it was Eastern Catholicism makes it no less Catholicism.

Please post mansucript datings prior to 400 AD. Where were these manuscripts prior?

I suggest they were probably Catholic altered Alexandrian Family.

CI, here is where you are mixed up. I am not saying you are wrong on the whole Bible issue, just some misleading statements. For instance, the NASB, NIV and most modern Versions use mainly the so called "Alexandrian Family manuscripts", and most KJV Onlyies denounce the Alexandrian manuscripts, but above you are saying the same thing as they? I suppose some of this confusion is my fault, but I will try to clear it up.

[conan]

The Tyndale and Wycliff Bibles are still used. And they a lot older.


Amen!:tiphat: :yowza:

[CoreIssue]

CI, here is where you are mixed up. I am not saying you are wrong on the whole Bible issue, just some misleading statements.
I understood that. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
For instance, the NASB, NIV and most modern Versions use mainly the so called "Alexandrian Family manuscripts", and most KJV Onlyies denounce the Alexandrian manuscripts, but above you are saying the same thing as they?
I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that I don't like the terms Alexandrian Family and Majority Family. Some of the best linguists I have read from in the past divide the manuscripts down much further.

As with the MSS. As seen in some thing already posted the RT derived from the MSS but constitute a manuscrpt base different from the MSS.

Same with the Alexandrian issue. It implies all such manuscrpts came from Egypt. Which is false.

The KJVO either try to make the Alexandrian all Catholic, which is nonsense since a good number predate Catholicism. Or make them Gnostic, which is also nonsense the even then the theologians rejected the manuscripts completely.

Or, with the Byzantine, trying to imply that since parts of the MSS family were Greek that automatically made them ancient Greek back to the Apostles directly, with no Alexandrian bases at all.

I believe we both agree on that general issue.
I suppose some of this confusion is my fault, but I will try to clear it up.

And what I am saying above is that since all manuscripts began in Israel and all such are called Alexandrian, then the Byzantine manuscripts had to have a connection to the Alexandrian since there was no such thing as Byzantine anything before 330 AD, as the manuscripts bear out. Meaning no Byzantine Family manuscripts pror to 400 AD at all.

Simple logic tells one that manuscript development is not multi-rooted, but single rootes and muti-branched.

For sure some of those branches need pruned, such as the Gnostic Gospels.

As for the exact datings of Bible, even scholars do not agree 100%. But Tyndale's Bible, from a historical perspective, is indeed a huge and majorly important event.

And Erasamus was a Catholic priest. That must not be forgotten.

[conan]

Hi Conan, greetings. Allow me to point out a couple of things here.
Tis important that our facts be properly contextualized :-)

These "small number" of manuscripts are homogeneous with about 95% plus (not just a 'plurality') of the Greek manuscripts. Anybody with a little math/statistics/probability savvy knows that when you have a homogeneous pool, a relatively small number will give a good, solid representation.

Very True:nod:

:): .. however they don't really agree with each other at all. They are widely and wildly defuse. eg. The differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Bezae and Alexandrius are humoungous, and the first three are abjectly corrupt manuscripts (the middle two the most) in terms of scribal integrity. Like real stupid scribe tricks, doubling and missing and crossing out. In a sane textual world oddball and corrupt manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Bezae would be little more than curiousities.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Yes Steven, but the author was talking about the Critical Texts, not the manuscripts used by them.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Core,

Since we have a completely different view of just about everything relating to the Bible manuscripts, top to bottom, and time is very valuable, I will pass on further dialog. Plus there was really no substance in your last post to which to respond.

Now, if you ever do have a pure inspired Bible that you defend then we can compare notes more.

Or if you can explain how two scribal disasters, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, should have be ome virtual proof-texts against the historic Bible. That could be an interesting discussion.

Or if you can ever give your evidence that the Byzantine never existed before...
(you insert the date here) ... your repeated assumption, from which all your 'logic' flows. Perhaps you are going by the 'Lucian recension' theory ? A theory essentially discarded.

The fact that you confuse the Byzantine (Syrian/Antiochan/Majority) text with the Byantine (sic) Empire shows that we aren't going to get anywhere.

Thanks for the chat .. so unless we have some real substance, back to lurkmode. Let me recommend folks interested in deeper conversation, real attempts to grapple with the conceptual issues, might want to pay a visit to WhichVersion on Yahoogroups (not a web forum), where these discussions are handled point-to-point and for the long haul.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Yes Steven, but the author was talking about the Critical Texts, not the manuscripts used by them. Then the statement in the article was deliberately deceptive and/or meaningless. All the "critical texts" from 1880 on are basically the Westcott-Hort hodgepodge text. They used the ultra-corrupt Vaticanus as a virtual prooftext in the beginning, and the various UBS and NA texts have varied little since then. The fact that they put out 28 Nestle-Aland editions and hundreds of competing copyrighted versions and revisions is of little import. The source is the same .. .mostly all Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, with a smidgen of others. And those two manuscripts are just complete junk, as discussed earlier.

GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Hey Steven,

Have to say it plain here. You have done nothing but made declarations without evidence.

Cannot have a discussion where your claims are supposedly evidence. They are not.
Or if you can ever give your evidence that the Byzantine never existed before...
As noted before, negative proof claims and demands are totally unacceptable and invalid in logic, sematics, law and debate.

It is not my burden to prove they did not exist. It is your burden to prove they did.

Which means your assumption they did, apart from Alexandrian family, is nothing more than that. Your assumption.

One is required to deal with the facts known. Not what you want to be true.

I note you are doing the common bail out here. When challenged to show where the Bible was before 1611, since you claim the 1611 KJV is THE Bible, you leave instead of acknowledging your position is totally flawed.

As Lucky said, you have taken a dogmatic position that does not give a hoot about actual proof. You have your position and you will not budge.

It would be okay for you to use the KJV exclusively as that is choice. But it becomes not okay when you take the position all other Bibles are totally corrupt and are heretical. Thus those using them are not true Christians. Or sad, ignorant Christians at best.

Such positions of heresy declared are why many KJV Only groups are held to be cult. They hold themselves as the only true Christians. And that is not good for the Body of Christ.

[Steven Avery]

As noted before, negative proof claims and demands are totally unacceptable and invalid in logic, sematics, law and debate.However you are the one who has made the claim time and again.

It is not my burden to prove they did not exist. It is your burden to prove they did.No, Core. You talk just like a skeptic. They say "prove that Luke wrote Luke, etc". Since you are making a definite assertion "there was no Byzantine text before the alexandrian manuscripts/text" (one that sounds prima facie absurd) you have a burden of proof. If you were not making the assertion, your hands would be clean.

I gather that logic is not your strong point.

I note you are doing the common bail out here. Definitely. When I deal with somebody who doesn't even understand 'burden of proof' when making an absurd historical assertion, and I could waste hours for nothing, I go to other fields. If there are real substantive conversations elsewhere on the thread, I will consider them.

Anyway, it is clear that you defend no tangible Bible asa the pure word of God. You do know how to attack the historic Bible however.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

The fact that you confuse the Byzantine (Syrian/Antiochan/Majority) text with the Byantine (sic) Empire shows that we aren't going to get anywhere.
You don't get it.

The MSS were under the Byzantine Empire. But in that rigid thinking they had no ancestor documents. They just suddenly were.

The Alexandrian predated the Byzantine Empire. But that is also rigid thinking.

Thus we have claims of two rigid lines of Bible manuscripts reaching back to the Apostles.

Neither rigid thinking make any sense! And is impossible.

The reality is, which more and more scholars are now saying, is that the Byzantine and Alexandrian share the same root, but when the Byzantine Empire was established the Catholic based MSS appeared, not by finding or destruction of older Byzantine manuscripts, but by being developed from the older 'Alexandrian.'

Get it? The MSS are Catholic altered Alexandrian.

You want to say otherwise? Then shows the manuscripts predating 400 AD that are not Alexandrian or seen to be a mix of Alexandrian and Byantine.

And remember, there are actually more than two families. There are at least 4, as in Alexandrian, Caesarian, Byzantine and Western. You are trying to take a dynamic historical process and make it static for the KJV.

And to say the RT is pure and inspired is amazing at best. We know the RT did not exist prior to the 1500s and is a compliation of many sources.

You are just dismissing too many issues here to be able to embrace your position.

All Bibles preserve God's key teachings. But none are word for word pure to the original.

[Steven Avery]

CoreIssue[/b]] The Tyndale and Wycliff Bibles are still used. And they a lot older. Amen! Personally, I have not seen any churches using either one. Have you ?

However, the Tyndale is vastly superior to what is used from the alex text, NIV, NAS, ESV, HCSB and the whole alphabet soup.

If you respect the Tyndale, and would use it instead of the junque modern versions, you would be making a wonderful step forward. The Tyndale NT especially was an incredible labour of a man dedicated to bringing the word of God to the ploughman. Oh, that folks today would use a Bible that good, from such pure underlying texts.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Personally, I have not seen any churches using either one. Have you ?
Nope.
However, the Tyndale is vastly superior to what is used from the alex text, NIV, NAS, ESV, HCSB and the whole alphabet soup.
Well, believe what you will.
If you respect the Tyndale, and would use it instead of the junque modern versions, you would be making a wonderful step forward.
Not really.
The Tyndale NT especially was an incredible labour of a man dedicated to bringing the word of God to the ploughman.
We actually agree on this point.
Oh, that folks today would use a Bible that good, from such pure underlying texts.
OK. This is all rhetoric and preaching. And we don't allow preaching.

Just post the links to the manuscript evidence dating back to to pre-MSS. And show us the pure, true Bible before the KJV.

Or did the poor believers have to do without totally until 1611?

[Steven Avery]

Oh, that folks today would use a Bible that good, from such pure underlying texts. OK. This is all rhetoric and preaching. And we don't allow preaching. So affirming that the historic Bible is beautiful and pure, that Tyndale, and the Geneva laborers, and the Reformation Bibles, and the King James Bible translators, knew how to recognize the word of God, and knew what they were doing, is "preaching" ??

Too bad one really isn't supposed to believe that God has His perfect tangible word on a Christian forum. That is "preaching", and apparently against the rule.

Maybe the name of the forum should be "infideltalkzone",
or "unbelievertalkzone" or "secular talkzone".

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

So affirming that the historic Bible is beautiful and pure, that Tyndale, and the Geneva laborers, and the Reformation Bibles, and the King James Bible translators, knew how to recognize the word of God, and knew what they were doing, is "preaching" ??
Pure? And the modern translations are heretical and done by heretics?

No, saying one prefers a translation is one thing. But judging it pure and THE Bible and condemning other good versions is very much a totally different issue.

There are regulars on CTZ that prefer the KJV. But they do not do the condemnations you are doing.
Too bad one really isn't supposed to believe that God has His perfect tangible word on a Christian forum. That is "preaching", and apparently against the rule.
When it results in nothing but calling all othere heretics, it is not acceptable here.

And all you have done is preach the 'purity' of the KJV and refused to address, with proof, all the challenges presented to you. All you do is dismiss and then condemn.

Not very Biblical of you.
Maybe the name of the forum should be "infideltalkzone",
or "unbelievertalkzone" or "secular talkzone".
Yep. The judgment condemnation, again. And refusal to actually discuss evidence.

Now we are not only heretics, but infidels, unbelievers and secular. Right out of the KJVO cult book of rhetoric.

Discuss if you wish. But do so presenting evidence. Not dogmatic doctrinal claims with hot air as your proof offerings.

No more of this kind of rhetoric. When you attack the salvation of others you have a debt to actually give evidence. .:back: with proofs from now on.

[Steven Avery]

You want to say otherwise? Then shows the manuscripts predating 400 AD that are not Alexandrian or seen to be a mix of Alexandrian and Byantine.Since this is your one tune, lets answer a bit.

Lot's of early church writer verses from the 2nd and 3rd and 4th century are Byzantine readings. Dean John Burgon did the huge surveys on this. I gave you one simple and very significant example, 1 Timothy 3:16. And could give you many more.

The Vulgate text, compiled in 384AD, is what you would call mixed Byzantine and Alexandrian, a simple example is the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera, two sections in the Vulgate not in alex texts. Dozens of other examples could be given. And that is despite the fact that Jerome passed by the Antiochan texts.

The extant Old Latin texts, from a bit later, are even more Byzantine than the Vulgate.

Many of the papyri, despite being in Egypt, are in fact mixed texts.

Hope that helps.

Your basic understanding is very flawed, which snowballs down the line. However, since you asked, and your basic assertion is on this idea that Byzantine readings just popped up very late, somehow, out of alex readings, it is worth the time to show you and the forum many aspects of your mistaken claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
You want to say otherwise? Then shows the manuscripts predating 400 AD that are not Alexandrian or seen to be a mix of Alexandrian and Byantine.

Since this is your one tune, lets answer a bit.

Lot's of early church writer verses from the 2nd and 3rd and 4th century are Byzantine readings. Dean John Burgon did the huge surveys on this. I gave you one simple and very significant example, 1 Timothy 3:16. And could give you many more.

Hello. Simply because you like them does not make them Byzantine and not Alexandrian. Or probably more accurately, common to both.

That is my point. This trying to claim this manuscript belongs exclusively to this group and that to that is bogus. Even the scholars don't agree.
The Vulgate text, compiled in 384AD, is what you would call mixed Byzantine and Alexandrian, a simple example is the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera, two sections in the Vulgate not in alex texts. Dozens of other examples could be given. And that is despite the fact that Jerome passed by the Antiochan texts.
Which again shows not two distinct lines of development. The distinctness was later, not earlier.
The extant Old Latin texts, from a bit later, are even more Byzantine than the Vulgate.
Again supporting my point.
All of which demands special attention to the earliest documents. Not the quantites produced of later documents.

Many of the papyri, despite being in Egypt, are in fact mixed texts.

Again proving my point.
Hope that helps.

Your basic understanding is very flawed, which snowballs down the line. However, since you asked, and your basic assertion is on this idea that Byzantine readings just popped up very late, somehow, out of alex readings, it is worth the time to show you and the forum many aspects of your mistaken claim.

All you have done is show I am right.
And the logic of the issues demand I am right.
Any logical person knows ALL manuscripts began from one author and one manuscript. The issue is when and were the later branchings took place. And they did not take place at one time in one place.
Thus your argument of the KJV lineage being pure demands you provide evidence for that pure lineage. Which you cannot.
The facts show the Byzantine, as the scholars show in the charts and such, became distince about 400 AD. And the pure Byzntine are most assuredly associated with the Byantine Empire and Eastern Catholicism.
But even there, we see branchings within. Such as the KJV.
Even there the Catholic enfluence cannot be denied. The KJV was not created under Catholicism, but Church of England. And yet still had the Apocrapha.
Not a cut and dry simple issue as you want to make it.

[Steven Avery]

CoreConfusion. You are quite hilarious. You have a theory, (everything began with the Alexandrian text), and even when your own criteria for evidence are totally contradicted, you simply hand-wave.

I will acknowledge that I do find you a bit entertaining in your obtuseness.

Maybe there are others on the forum who can handle a constructive and logical conversation ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[conan]

The extant Old Latin texts, from a bit later, are even more Byzantine than the Vulgate.

Steven, I would have to challenge that. The Old Latins are a "Western Text" type.

[Steven Avery]

Steven, I would have to challenge that. The Old Latins are a "Western Text" type. Hi Conan .. that is assuming that there is a meaningful thing as a "western text" which is a hot debate in textcrit land. And our discussion was focusing on Byzantine readings in early usage and lines, not overall classifications. The discussion essentially tanked because Core took both sides of the same issue :-) (If there were early Byzantine readings and if there were not, he claims that either way it shows Alexandrian primacy).

Here is an example... the Tepl is considered from the Old Latin line. And it clearly has a number of Byzantine readings that the Vulgate does not not have. That one we went over with a fellow who has the Tepl.

When we deal with earlier manuscripts like Vercellensis, we are hampered a bit by the fact that there is not an easily available translation, so such checking becomes quite laborious.
If you have even one Old Latin Gospel in translation, let me know, and I will be happy to compare Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

CoreConfusion. You are quite hilarious. You have a theory, (everything began with the Alexandrian text), and even when your own criteria for evidence are totally contradicted, you simply hand-wave.

I will acknowledge that I do find you a bit entertaining in your obtuseness.

Maybe there are others on the forum who can handle a constructive and logical conversation ?

The only confusion here is coming from you. You don't seem to be able to get a quote from anyone correct.

I said all manuscripts began in Israel. And the branches developed from there.

Personal attacks and diversions such as yours are classical signs of one who has no actual answers when put in a corner.;)

You already labeled everyone here heretic.

[Steven Avery]

I said all manuscripts began in Israel. Then by what basis could you claim that the oddball readings in the two alexandrian manuscripts "began in Israel". Such as the omission of the ending of Mark. Can you document those unique readings and omissions with anything from Israel ?

And you did claim that the Byzantine came from the Alexandrian.
If you are now backing off that absurd claim, good, that is wisdom.

You already labeled everyone here heretic. Ahh.. please don't lie.

I would however say that the modern versionists, the alexandrian cornfuseniks, are promoting textual apostasy (if you want a real term that I do use in these discussions.).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CoreIssue]

Good grief!

I said the original manuscripts were written by the Apostles and the original spread began in Israel. Then the branches formed. The original autographs were not any manuscript family. There were the originals from which the variations came.

And there have been enough comments on heretic versions and so on.

Post the links demonstrating a pure lineage from the early manuscripts directly to the RT. You cannot because there are none.

The MSS from which the RT came are from the 10th century on. Now, if you can show those texts also existing, word for word, in the 1st century, then please do so.

Further, claiming the KJV is the pure and perfect Bible extracted from the RT extracted from the MSS, non agreeing texts, demands you reveal to us how you know they got it perfect, and how you know it is perfect.

I have already shown the KJV has errors. Easter and candlesticks, in example, are errors, thus the KJV is not perfect.

How can you claim the KJV is perfect with these two blatant doctrinal errors right before you? Not to even get into all the others.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I gather that logic is not your strong point.

Definitely. When I deal with somebody who doesn't even understand 'burden of proof' when making an absurd historical assertion, and I could waste hours for nothing, I go to other fields. If there are real substantive conversations elsewhere on the thread, I will consider them.


Steven, confine your comments to debate and discussion. Do not attack another member of this board.

Dodging questions and insulting members of this board will not be tolerated. Please answer the questions put to you.

[Neachley]

If you think the Translators of the KJB were weak in their knowledge, then you need to read this article:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/wasthe.htm

[CoreIssue]

If you think the Translators of the KJB were weak in their knowledge, then you need to read this article:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/wasthe.htm
Simple historical fact today has more manuscripts and other materials from the ancient times to give a better understanding.

Not an attack on them. Just a simple reality.

That is a terrible offering as proof.

The competent Bible historians and linquists do not make those sledge hammer claims against the KJV authors. Those are overblown and ridiculous statements from KJVO preachers.

And Dallas Seminary? Of course he had to go there and only there for his backing. They are KJVO folk!

The KJV creators did a fine job using the materials they possessed. But none of the manuscripts they possessed predated the 10th century. Today there are manuscripts back to the first century.

And yes, Biblical Criticism, which many KJVO folk condemn as modern did exist then. When did I ever say otherwise?

Then they attack those who do not agree as lacking. Meaning they are attacking a ton more scholars and linquist than every worked on the KJV or are modern day appologists for it.

Answer it for yourself. Who has access to the better materials for a better translation? Those who have manuscripts all the way back to the time of the Apostles or those who only have manuscripts from the 10th century on?

Notice they do not deny these points? They say 'if true.' Assumption! They assume they had access to more when history denies that.

Not to mention the non-Bible mansucripts they give a better command on the ancient Greek that they did not have then.

It is a known fact the manuscripts the KJV people used had Catholic scribe notes blended into the text. That is not a debatable point.

The KJV people were great. And today we also have some greats. But great plus assets and materials makes a difference.

[Steven Avery]

Steven, confine your comments to debate and discussion. Do not attack another member of this board. Dodging questions and insulting members of this board will not be tolerated. Please answer the questions put to you. Look at the above from CoreIssue.
" I said the original manuscripts were written by the Apostles and the original spread began in Israel."

And compare it to the earlier from CoreIssue.
" The Byzantine texts came from the Alexandrian. They did not exist before 400 AD."

Now he acts as if he never claimed or asserted this, and just goes all over the map. So if somebody switches gears, and is illogical, it is my responsibility to point it out, if we are to have a real dialog.

And anybody can cut-and-paste a laundry list of questions and require you to spend hours on questions that they really don't know or care about anyway (such as the Genesis 1:2 fiasco). So if you think there is a truly significant question unanswered, then be very specific, I do not do laundry lists (except for laundry).

So I have one simple one that remains unanswered for the modern versionsists here..

Is there any tangible Bible or manuscript, in any languages that you truly consider the perfect and preserved word of God ?

Simple question. Will any modern versionist give an honest answer ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Steven, we have no problem with asking questions, or even heated discussion....we even appreciate a good spirited debate here, but not if they resort to insults. I understand how easy it is to get heated while engaged in debate, but please focus your comments on the poster's argument, and not the poster themselves.

Now, with no further ado.... :back:

[CTZonEdit]

So I have one simple one that remains unanswered for the modern versionsists here..

Is there any tangible Bible or manuscript, in any languages that you truly consider the perfect and preserved word of God ?

Simple question. Will any modern versionist give an honest answer ?



This was answered more than once I believe.

There is no perfect bible. Sorry to burst your bubble. That is why in order to get the essence of what God is trying to communicate we recommend you use a couple of different versions to cross reference them against one another as well as an interlinear to see the original text in its original language.

Want to use the KJV, fine but cross reference it with the NASB or NIV and you will gain a better understanding.

Questiond answered. Again.

Now, why do you adamantly refuse to admit the KJV is full of errors and is completely outdated in its language and is confusing in its contexts and meaning such as the candlesticks and the Genesis issues? These are KEY issues not something you can just dismiss, yet you continue to do so because the KJV is the perfection of the word of GOD, according to you.

Care to answer that one?

[Neachley]

Which is the whole problem! How can any believer say that there is no perfect Bible?! If there is no perfect Bible then God is in error and we cannot guarantee our salvation.

Either the Bible is perfect and inerrant or it isn`t. This is the argument used by liberals who like to discredit the Bible.

[CoreIssue]

Which is the whole problem! How can any believer say that there is no perfect Bible?! If there is no perfect Bible then God is in error and we cannot guarantee our salvation.

Either the Bible is perfect and inerrant or it isn`t. This is the argument used by liberals who like to discredit the Bible.
You are basing your embracing of the KJV on assumed demand that Christ said there word for word preservation.

Indeed if that is what he said he errored because there is no such word for word Bible.

His teachings have been preserved. Teachings can tolerate some error and still come out the perfect teachings of God. Word for word cannot.

Think here. Christ did not say a perfect Bible. He said perfect scriptures.

Before the blooks of the New Testament were gathered together there most assuredly were continuous scriptures in manuscript form.

The KJV is from the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is formed from ciritical thinking of SIX mansucripts that did not agree.

Six means no one was perfect and true, word for word, from the original autographs.

What does this do to your thinking about there having the be perfect scriptures?

Most KJVO advocates refuse to even allow their minds to consider this problem with their position. Most who do cease to be KJVO advocates.

I repeat. The KJV is from the RT which was created by editing and merging the texts of 6 non agreeing manuscripts. Thus the demand for perfect, word for word, preserved scriptures is false. Did not happen.

Where were the perfect word for word scriptures before 1611?

Really, it has already been demonstrated the KJV is not word for word perfect even to the TR. A number of Hebrew and Greek words were mistranslated.

Meaning has been preserved from Christ on. Not word for word.

As shown in the Bible Paradox a word for word is impossible.

[CTZonEdit]

Which is the whole problem! How can any believer say that there is no perfect Bible?!

Because there isnt. Any bible historian or linguist will tell you that point blank. The other problem is that when you say Bible you mean KJV only. The perfection is the message, not the book.

And the message the the KJV conveys causes too much confusion to be relied upon any longer to gather the MESSAGE that God is trying to communicate.

Got it? Gods word is a message not the KJV version of the Bible.


If there is no perfect Bible then God is in error and we cannot guarantee our salvation.

No. God never said he would hand down a perfect bible. So you need a perfect Bible book in order to guarantee salvation now?

Either the Bible is perfect and inerrant or it isn`t. This is the argument used by liberals who like to discredit the Bible.

The message is inerrant, but we have already shown the KJV is not perfect.

No it isnt a problem.

Its a problem for you alone because you believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God. It is not. A bible is not and never will be perfect, sorry.

Gods word is not A BIBLE. When you can grasp that point then maybe you will understand.

[Neachley]

There`s no need to speak to me like a child.

[CoreIssue]

There`s no need to speak to me like a child.
No one is.

We are trying to get you to get off this hang up there has to be a word for word perfect Bible and look beyond it at the facts. And trying to be polite about it.

Things have been said over and over refuting the claim the KJV is perfect. But you just keep looping back to the KJVO false demand there HAS to be a word for word perfect Bible. For many it has become indoctrinated thinking that they cannot even begin to wrap the thoughts and logic around.

There cannot be a word for word perfect translated Bible to English. It is impossible because the language differences will not allow it. As the simplistic hand issues shows. And there are plenty more such examples that get more complex.

The KJV is wrong on Genesis 1:2 using 'And.' The Hebrew does not allow it. Wrong on Easter, as I showed, wrong on candlestick.

It is indeed an honorable Bible. And people are free to use it. But in this day in time with what we have available now, that they did not, it is not the best version.

The KJV was not even translated from one mansuscript. It came from the RT which was compiled from six manuscripts.

You are left was only two options. The KJV is indeed a Bible, but not THE only Bible OR, God intervened and made the KJV authors get it 100% right by divine intervention.

Option 2 is a non-starter because they made errors. And they included the Apocrapha. And they added margin and footnotes that gave other possible translations that did not say the same thing.

If God had intervened and inspired a word for word perfect Bible, there would have been no translations errors and no alternative translations in the margins and and footnotes.

If you disagree then explain the issues of Easter and candlesticks for oil lamps. Explain 'And' in Genesis 1:2 when even the Torah uses 'Now.' Explain why they included variant translations in the margins and footnotes. And explain why they refused to claim it was a perfect work.

This is not an battle for points and winning. It is an issue of truth.

No one has reason or desire to insult you. You have been nothing but polite here. And you are one of us, not us and you.

[Steven Avery]

The KJV is wrong on Genesis 1:2 using 'And.' The Hebrew does not allow it. The stupidity of an issue like this is amazing and quite transparent. There is something extremely strange if you won't even drop the most absurd claim as this one. Some linguist years ago sort of told you something, and it is against the King James Bible translation, so you don't know how to fold em.

Here are a two Hebrew-savvy folks commenting on this 'no and' claim.
Neither is remotely King James Bible.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html - Harold Holmyard
There is a conjunction in Hebrew at the beginning of Gen 1:2 that could be represented in English by "And" before "the earth was without form... Either "and" or "now" could work.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028099.html (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html) - Vadim Cherny
Both readings, "and" and "now/when" are not far apart semantically. Sort of
deictic shift. When the author says, "and," he means sequence of events, not
simply their conjunction. That could be paraphrased, "It was the beginning,
and then the earth was such-and-such."

If you read the thread, you will see that your "because" claim is also quite weak, with the
Arthur Custance argument (who in other realms, like the virgin birth, does a lot of good writing) simply refuted.

Please, how can anybody take your claims against the King James Bible
serioursly if you can't even see that a vav translated as "and" is
perfectly normal and good translation.

This is amazing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery.

[CoreIssue]

Enough of your cynical and insulting issue dodging. Again you want to only deal with issues you feel you can dispute and get away with.

Well, here is one you cannot try to convolute. And have continually dodged answering. And is the only thing for you to answer. Say anything other than a concrete proof answer or concession you are operating on faith and not facts and you are banned.

The KJV is a compliation text, not a single original text. Answer the following points individual and factually. Not with rhetoric or preaching of what you feel must be:
1. How can you claim the KJV is 100% the word of God without error, translation wise or any other way? You have no manuscripts dating from the Apostles to them without change to reference. So how do you know it is absolute accurate without error?

Is this a faith claim or a fact claim? If a fact claim the provide the proof for us all to see. And no, that does not mean saying it has to be fact, or quoting a verse from the Bible with your spin on it.

How do YOU know the KJV is absolutely true to the authographs?

2. Since you claim God said he would preserve and provide a perfect Bible, where was this perfect Bible prior to the KJV of 1611?

3. If the KJV is absolutely perfect and true, why did the authors include alternative translations in the margins and footnotes? Alternatives that did not say the same things in a number of case?

Simple questions. And for once so absolutely sure of his position you should have zero problems providing proof.

Time to put up or shut up and go away.

[CoreIssue]

Hey Neachley,

You have probably read it, but the KJV authors themselves said other Bibles were equally God's word and that their work was not perfect, and would need correction as the errors were found.

Good read about honest men concerning their work found here. (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html#2)

If the authors say this where does the justification for the KJVO thinking come from?

[Steven Avery]

There is no perfect bible. Question for readers -- some of whom may be lurkers.

Is this the view of all the people here who do not accept
the King James Bible as the pure word of God ?

"There is no perfect bible."

Is that part of your belief, or statement of (un)faith ?
And if you do lean to this view, does the imperfection cause you any concern or discomfit ?

Would it concern you if His word is not pure, that perhaps His life, or His promises,
or His salvation, may also have a tinge of that unpurity ? What would be the basis
for the hope that is in you, how sure is this hope, if His word is imperfect with errors
and mistakes and corruption ? Does not even a little leaven ... ?

Any responses from other than the regulars will be especially appreciated.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

There is no perfect bible. Question for readers -- some of whom may be lurkers.

Is this the view of all the people here who do not accept
the King James Bible as the pure word of God ?

"There is no perfect bible."

Is that part of your belief, or statement of (un)faith ?
And if you do lean to this view, does the imperfection cause you any concern or discomfit ?

Would it concern you if His word is not pure, that perhaps His life, or His promises,
or His salvation, may also have a tinge of that unpurity ? What would be the basis
for the hope that is in you, how sure is this hope, if His word is imperfect with errors
and mistakes and corruption ? Does not even a little leaven ... ?

Any responses from other than the regulars will be especially appreciated.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[CTZonEdit]

Question for readers -- some of whom may be lurkers.

Is this the view of all the people here who do not accept
the King James Bible as the pure word of God ?

"There is no perfect bible."

Is that part of your belief, or statement of (un)faith ?
And if you do lean to this view, does the imperfection cause you any concern or discomfit ?

Would it concern you if His word is not pure, that perhaps His life, or His promises,
or His salvation, may also have a tinge of that unpurity ? What would be the basis
for the hope that is in you, how sure is this hope, if His word is imperfect with errors
and mistakes and corruption ? Does not even a little leaven ... ?


When you realize that the word of God is not any particular Bible then maybe we can have a dialog. Until then your arguments are fruitless.

The Bible doesnt save anyone. The MESSAGE of CHRIST contained within the SCRIPTURES is what is the infallible truth is.

Sorry that your KJV is "unpure" but that is YOUR problem, not anyone elses here, we are all smart enough to discern that bit. We realize the power of the Holy scriptures, not the power of the KJV Bible.

[CoreIssue]

You were warned several times to stop the preaching and answer the questions that you just keep ignoring.

You will not admit it is a pure faith statement on your part, without any way of supporting the accusations and judgements you place on others concerning it.

:bye:
As promised you are banned.

[CoreIssue]

Steven, if you ever wish to answer those questions, email the answer to me.

If it is a genuine answer, I will post it and lift your ban.

[CoreIssue]

I did some more Internet research on KJVO sites for where the Perfect Bible was before 1611.

I have only found one that even tried to answer.

He said that true Bible had been dispersed as pieces into many manuscripts. And in the process of time all the pieces were in the RT texts. And from the RT the KJV extracted the true pieces and created the true Bible.

An inventive, but unsubstaniated claim based on the author's pure faith God intervened and guided the KJV authors to create the Perfect Bible.

But at least it contained the two elements of truth such as Steven Avery would not admit. Their belief the KJV is the Perfect Bible is a pure faith claim based on absolutely zero evidence.

Even in the attempt at basing that thinking of the jots and tittles, the argument fails.

Why? Because this was talking about the Greek letter iota that had little markings above part of the main letter body.

The letter iota with it critical small markings does not exist in the English.

So, if it is literal on the letter iota, the KJV fails because iota disappeared from the English text. If it means the smallest meanings of the law, then the argument falls apart becuase many versions preserve the meaning. And some more than the KJV because the KJV has translation errors.

There is no argument for the KJVO as to where the Perfect Bible, per their claims, was prior to 1611. Or how the 1611 became Perfect.

I will now wait for some KJVO person to give a better answer.

And no, preferring the KJV is not the same as KJVO where it is the only real Bible.

[conan]

I did some more Internet research on KJVO sites for where the Perfect Bible was before 1611.

I have only found one that even tried to answer.

He said that true Bible had been dispersed as pieces into many manuscripts. And in the process of time all the pieces were in the RT texts. And from the RT the KJV extracted the true pieces and created the true Bible.

An inventive, but unsubstaniated claim based on the author's pure faith God intervened and guided the KJV authors to create the Perfect Bible.

WOW! And I thought I was the only one who thought of that;) I am not KJO, but if I was, that would be my position. Actually, that is the position of all Textual Critics.

[CoreIssue]

WOW! And I thought I was the only one who thought of that;) I am not KJO, but if I was, that would be my position. Actually, that is the position of all Textual Critics.
Is it? I don't mean that sarcastically.

The norm of the KJVO folk is to refuse to answer it from my experience over a lot of years.

[conan]

The norm of the KJVO folk is to refuse to answer it from my experience over a lot of years.

Agreed.

Is it? I don't mean that sarcastically.

When I had said "that is the position of all Textual Critics" I meant that editors behind the Greek Texts do not follow only one manuscript, but examine them all, or those that have been published to edit their Texts.

[CoreIssue]

When I had said "that is the position of all Textual Critics" I meant that editors behind the Greek Texts do not follow only one manuscript, but examine them all, or those that have been published to edit their Texts.
Ah, OK!

[PeterAV]

Core:
It does not take long to see there have been radical changes, including the dropping of Books of the Apocrapha from its content.
*******
Core,are you a Catholic?:scratch:

[CoreIssue]

Core:
*******
Core,are you a Catholic?:scratch:
:swoon: No way!!!

I am a non-denominational Biblical literalist.

My point was the original KJV included those books, foot and margin notes that gave alternative translations and was edited in the future.

If the KVJ is the revealed received text from God, as KJV Only people claim, those books would have never been in there to begin with, there would have been no need of alternate translations in foot and margin notes and no need of corrective editing later.

And there sure would not have been verses and words added to the text and words mistranslated.

The KJV authors never claimed it was inspired nor pure.

So all the claims of the Onlyists just do not add up. That is my point.

Not to mention by their logic, there was no pure Bible, by Onlyiest definition, before 1611. Yet, by their very argument God says there must be, their had to be.

But no. I am no Catholic or Orthodox. The Harlot is The RCC and Rome.

[PeterAV]

If the KVJ is the revealed received text from God, as KJV Only people claim, those books would have never been in there to begin with, there would have been no need of alternate translations in foot and margin notes and no need of corrective editing later.
Now what kind of logic is this?
If God's creation was as perfect and very good as God said is was then why did it have Satan in it and temptation and a mediocre will to stay pure?Satan would never have been there to begin with.

There would have been no need for the Saviour to come and an alternate route to take than the first.
*******
This is your logic.
*******
And there sure would not have been verses and words added to the text and words mistranslated.
Lots you ignored to make that type of statement.
The text was fine and you know it.
It was the illiterate typsetters and shortcuts they used and the fact that they had three million letters to put in by hand.
Even computers can't get perfect,first try.
The fault is never God's as you insinuate,but always man's.
All those typos are fixed are they not?
So now it is as it was meant to be.
The original is a fine production and infinitely better than anything of the modern Alexandrian heretical materials that are used.
*******

The KJV authors never claimed it was inspired nor pure.
I never said they claimed it was inspired.
But we both know that it is the very preserved word of God in English.

So all the claims of the Onlyists just do not add up. That is my point.
*******
So all your missinformation about the AV promoters is the real thing that does not add up.
That is God's point.
God promised to preserve his word.
Did he and where is it?
I belive that the Holy Bible is none other than the pure Holy Bible AKA AV 1611.
Where is your perfect pure word?

[CoreIssue]

If the KVJ is the revealed received text from God, as KJV Only people claim, those books would have never been in there to begin with, there would have been no need of alternate translations in foot and margin notes and no need of corrective editing later.
Now what kind of logic is this?
Absolutely sound logic.
Either God gave it to them right, the first time, or it was not from him, in the manner you claim.
If God's creation was as perfect and very good as God said is was then why did it have Satan in it and temptation and a mediocre will to stay pure?Satan would never have been there to begin with.

There would have been no need for the Saviour to come and an alternate route to take than the first.
*******
This is your logic.
*******

No. That is a complete departure from the subject at hand.
God did not promise to preserve his word in a word for word manner. But a meaning for meaning manner. Which he did.
And that meaning was altered, slightly, very slightly, in the KJV, by adding passages and verses, that were not there, at the beginning, and by mistranslating many words.
Is the essential Gospel there? Yes.
Is it in all the the modern tranlations? Yes, and more accurately translated and stated.
Was it preserved before the KJV, as well? Yes.
Yours is the bad logic. By your logic there was no Bible before the KJV. And it is the only Bible given, ever. Which cannot stand up to scrutiny.

And there sure would not have been verses and words added to the text and words mistranslated.
Lots you ignored to make that type of statement.
No. Actually you are ignoring the facts.
We know the Apocrapha was never Bible. We know verses, such as overcoming some demons demands prayer, fasting and such adds conditions not there before.
These things suddenly began appearing in the manuscripts at around 400 AD. Under the Catholics.
We know the KJV was not taken from A manuscript, but was an edited compliation of at least 5 manuscripts.
History is a demanding thing.
The text was fine and you know it.
It was the illiterate typsetters and shortcuts they used and the fact that they had three million letters to put in by hand.

No. The old typo argument is way outdated and ignorant. Typos do not add verses and a lot of words to verses. Typos do not add margin notes that say, "It can alternatively mean this or that."
Even computers can't get perfect,first try.
Yep. But the issue is not typos.
The fault is never God's as you insinuate,but always man's.

I never said ti was God's.
I said your claim was false that the KJV is perfect, word for word, whichs is Man's fault.
I said God preserved the essential teachings, as he promised to.
If you think the KJV is perfect, word for word, you don't have a clue that no translation, from one language to another, can be perfect, word for word.
Meaning for meaning, but never word for word. Impossible.
All those typos are fixed are they not?
Not talking typos. Talking altered manuscripts.
So now it is as it was meant to be.
The original is a fine production and infinitely better than anything of the modern Alexandrian heretical materials that are used.
*******

A claim without proof.

The KJV authors never claimed it was inspired nor pure.
I never said they claimed it was inspired.
But we both know that it is the very preserved word of God in English.
Actually, we know it is a composite document using manuscripts dating from 400 AD forward. Not from the oldest manuscripts.
Those mansucripts have no history prior to 400AD.

So all the claims of the Onlyists just do not add up. That is my point.
*******
So all your missinformation about the AV promoters is the real thing that does not add up
Actually they do.
You guys just repeating the same mantra, over and over, just does not stand up to historical fact.
That is God's point.

No. That is your claim.
God promised to preserve his word.

Yes, meaning for meaning. Not word for word.
No one has original autogrpahs. And the KJV mansucripts were not even created until 1600 years after the origiinals.
Did he and where is it?
The meaning is in many versions. Word for word in none.
I belive that the Holy Bible is none other than the pure Holy Bible AKA AV 1611.
Yep, you believe that by pure faith, nothing more. No facts. Cannot even show where God said the KJV was pure.
Where is your perfect pure word?
In essential meaning, many Bibles.
In the closests to word for word, the NIV and NASB are the best.
The KJV is from manuscripts we know were altered by Catholic scribes.

[PeterAV]

And that meaning was altered, slightly, very slightly, in the KJV, by adding passages and verses, that were not there, at the beginning, and by mistranslating many words.
I sure would like to see your proof for this spoof.

[PeterAV]

No. The old typo argument is way outdated and ignorant. Typos do not add verses and a lot of words to verses. Typos do not add margin notes that say, "It can alternatively mean this or that."
What kind of crap is this?Get real.Where is yer proof?

[CoreIssue]

What kind of crap is this?Get real.Where is yer proof?
Oh, no! Get off the negative proof demand.

YOU claimed the KJV is the every present pure word of God. For that to be true YOU have to present manuscript evidence back well before 400 AD. And you cannot.

Where is the pure word of God in 1500? I will give you a break and show you cannot even move it back that far. Not any manuscript you can lay side by side wht the KJV and get a match.

Why? Because the KJV is not from any one single source. Period.

Faith proves nothing. Everyone has faith in something. That does not make it true.

Show me your Pure Bible before the KJV. Good luck, but you cannot.

[PeterAV]

Core,
Your lame excuses are not no be used to give yourself an excuse to use tainted Bibles with the foundations of Catholics and Arians,Gnostics,Heretics,Unbelivers,Unitarians,inc luding a lesbian on one of the modern versions.

The texts that the AV follow are from those that agree almost completely.99%
But the Texts that the Alexandrian texts use are at odds even with each other and often disagree with each other so often it is hard to find two verses in a row that agree.1%
45 Miserable manuscrits and basically two or three.
They include the Apocraphs as part of the text interspersed as if it is part of holy writ.

The AV line does not do this,They separate the apocrapha inbetween the Old and New Testaments and do not aknowledge it on the title page.Two years after 1611 the Holy Bible started to be made by many without the apocraphs despite the rantings of one of the bishops.

Now why would any sane person knowing the beginings of the Corrupted Alexandrian manusripts,that have been pr