King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
Jason, you're still dodging the question. YOU pushed me to provide proof for an earlier assertion I made, and I have given you plenty.

Do you acknowledge there are differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

I assume by your posts you don't hold to a Majority Text position, like other KJVO (or certainly anti-Critical Text) people often advocate, so I don't see why you seem so reluctant to answer. It's a simple yes or no, and I don't see what the nature of your own brand of 'faith in God's word' has to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
Jason, you're still dodging the question. YOU pushed me to provide proof for an earlier assertion I made, and I have given you plenty.

Do you acknowledge there are differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

I assume by your posts you don't hold to a Majority Text position, like other KJVO (or certainly anti-Critical Text) people often advocate, so I don't see why you seem so reluctant to answer. It's a simple yes or no, and I don't see what the nature of your own brand of 'faith in God's word' has to do with it.
I believe currently it is unknown. For you can't acknowledge something in the past as it being 100% factual because it doesn't exist for us to test it in the present. As I said before, I have no way of knowing what manuscripts are truly authentic because I don't have a time machine to follow and verify what copied manuscripts that are used for the translations today. The only way I can prove that is if they line up with the perfect Word of God that I have now. The only thing I got is looking at what is in front of me in our present reality and not in some distant past that I did not live in.

For your focus is on History. My focus is on the Word of God. Can I defend my position on this topic with the Bible? Yes. I have already done so. This is a far cry from those on the opposite side of the fence on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
What I believe is that the majority of the Modern Translations come from the Westcott and Hort Greek translation. This translation was based on what they believed to be as "older" being better (Which it was not). The King James came from the TR (Textus Receptus). I believe the TR that lines up with the KJV is either lost, or not available to the public. Can I prove it? No. Not anymore than you can prove that such and such manuscripts are authentic or not. But my faith is in God's Word today because of the observable evidence that it has shown to me.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
I believe currently it is unknown. For you can't acknowledge something in the past as it being 100% factual because it doesn't exist for us to test it in the present. As I said before, I have no way of knowing what manuscripts are truly authentic because I don't have a time machine to follow and verify what copied manuscripts that are used for the translations today. The only way I can prove that is if they line up with the perfect Word of God that I have now. The only thing I got is looking at what is in front of me in our present reality and not in some distant past that I did not live in.

For your focus is on History. My focus is on the Word of God. Can I defend my position on this topic with the Bible? Yes. I have already done so. This is a far cry from those on the opposite side of the fence on this topic.
You do realise the Majority Text is those that are extant, right? So it, by definition, exists in the present for us to test. There are over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available to us today, several of those being more or less complete copies. It is from these that the Majority Texts are compiled - you can read a Majority Text version of the NT today. Online. For free. You simply can't be agnostic about this question, because I am asking you to compare two texts that actually exist today. You can go READ them. Just because you don't want to, or can't be bothered to, doesn't then allow you to claim it is 'unknown'. Give me your address and I will send you physical copies of both the BMT and the TR, if you do not want to procure them yourself, or for whatever reason do not wish to read online. Calling that which is known unknown and in fact readily accessible is complete disingenuous as an argument.

The reason why this is significant is because of the arguments used by those in favour of the Majority Text (who often erroneously confuse that position for a pro-KJVO position, but whatever). I don't agree with the way they frame it and the terms they use, but the argument often goes that God preserves his word, and does so infallibly. Therefore, God's word has survived to this day in manuscripts we have available to us. The argument also goes that because of this, we should expect the majority of manuscripts that have survived to contain the the correct reading of the text, because why would God allow the correct readings to survive only in a handful of manuscripts for at least several centuries? Surely it must exist only in the majority of Greek texts.

Now, obviously that isn't the position you personally hold. You are agnostic about being able to verify anything historically in general (by doing so, you basically relegate the works of Hills, Hoskier Hodge, Burgon, Erasmus, the KJV translators, Jerome, and basically the whole field of historiography to the garbage pile), which makes me wonder why you even asked me to prove the difference between the Majority Text and the TR in the first place. At least be consistent and apply what you argue to others to your own rhetoric.

Yet again, I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that you're happy to appeal to certain kinds of proof if it suits you, and when it doesn't, you retreat to a position that is rhetorically foolproof, but intellectually and evidentially completely indefensible.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
I believe the TR that lines up with the KJV is either lost, or not available to the public.
This is utterly wrong. Not even the likes of Edward Hills, or D.A White, or Hoskier for that matter, have, at least to my knowledge ever suggested the TR used with the KJV became, and still is, LOST. I'm not sure Ruckman has ever argued that, and I'm sure he'd LOVE to.

The KJV was based on the 1550 Stephanus edition of the TR, which is available in many places, such as a PDF copy here, and also exists in physical editions (Dallas Theological Seminary is one of many libraries that has had a copy, they were just the ones I found in a 5 second google search). Of course, the KJV isn't 100% identical to 1550 TR, because the translators made their own judgement in a couple of places, which is part of the reason Scrivener made a new edition in 1894 (also available in print today), to clarify those readings and to show clearly the links between the Greek text and the KJV.

In any case, I do not need you to prove that the TR used with the KJV is lost, because it patently is not. Even if I accepted your argument as anything more than completely ridiculous, are you now suggesting that God in fact allowed the single most important Greek copy of his holy word to just simply get LOST in the last four hundred years, when so many other complete documents from that time are still extant?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
You do realise the Majority Text is those that are extant, right? So it, by definition, exists in the present for us to test. There are over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available to us today, several of those being more or less complete copies. It is from these that the Majority Texts are compiled - you can read a Majority Text version of the NT today. Online. For free. You simply can't be agnostic about this question, because I am asking you to compare two texts that actually exist today. You can go READ them. Just because you don't want to, or can't be bothered to, doesn't then allow you to claim it is 'unknown'. Give me your address and I will send you physical copies of both the BMT and the TR, if you do not want to procure them yourself, or for whatever reason do not wish to read online. Calling that which is known unknown and in fact readily accessible is complete disingenuous as an argument.

The reason why this is significant is because of the arguments used by those in favour of the Majority Text (who often erroneously confuse that position for a pro-KJVO position, but whatever). I don't agree with the way they frame it and the terms they use, but the argument often goes that God preserves his word, and does so infallibly. Therefore, God's word has survived to this day in manuscripts we have available to us. The argument also goes that because of this, we should expect the majority of manuscripts that have survived to contain the the correct reading of the text, because why would God allow the correct readings to survive only in a handful of manuscripts for at least several centuries? Surely it must exist only in the majority of Greek texts.

Now, obviously that isn't the position you personally hold. You are agnostic about being able to verify anything historically in general (by doing so, you basically relegate the works of Hills, Hoskier Hodge, Burgon, Erasmus, the KJV translators, Jerome, and basically the whole field of historiography to the garbage pile), which makes me wonder why you even asked me to prove the difference between the Majority Text and the TR in the first place. At least be consistent and apply what you argue to others to your own rhetoric.

Yet again, I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that you're happy to appeal to certain kinds of proof if it suits you, and when it doesn't, you retreat to a position that is rhetorically foolproof, but intellectually and evidentially completely indefensible.
I didn't deny that there are old manuscripts in existence of the Holy Scriptures. That is not news to me. What I am saying is that you have to test it in the here and now to prove it is genuine or not. In other words, the text on those manuscripts has to show us that it is the divinely inspired Word of God and not the author of mere mortals. For the author mere mortals make mistakes. But God doesn't make mistakes. Not possible.

Again, you keep changing the focus to History instead of the Bible on this issue. My authority is not History or in proving a language on a piece of paper that I do not understand. The only way to verify the truth of God's Word is by comparing it with today's translations. I believe God preserved His Word in the world language today. Not because I think so. But because the Word of God says so. Looking to the Scriptures in a language that we don't understand normally is not proof of anything. We really can't know a dead language with 100% certainty unless we have translation in our own language that confirms it.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
I didn't deny that there are old manuscripts in existence of the Holy Scriptures. That is not news to me. What I am saying is that you have to test it in the here and now to prove it is genuine or not. In other words, the text on those manuscripts has to show us that it is the divinely inspired Word of God and not the author of mere mortals.
So I can get your argument straight, you believe that it is quite possible for the majority of Greek manuscripts that we have today (or, for that matter, the majority of Greek manuscripts that existed at the time of 1611, because we have the same manuscripts, just with many, MANY extra) to not contain the genuine 'Word of God', at least in the rigid sense that you define it?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
So I can get your argument straight, you believe that it is quite possible for the majority of Greek manuscripts that we have today (or, for that matter, the majority of Greek manuscripts that existed at the time of 1611, because we have the same manuscripts, just with many, MANY extra) to not contain the genuine 'Word of God', at least in the rigid sense that you define it?
How do we define faith?

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So are you telling me your faith is based upon Historical manuscripts that sort of contains the Word of God? That no perfect Word exists for you to really base your faith off of it?

How do we get faith?

Well, Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Tell me. If your faith is based upon an almost perfect Word of God, then what does that say about your faith?

Is not my faith based on God's Word?

Do all the Modern Translations or all the manuscripts say the same exact thing? Do all Greek scholars agree? Is their one standard final Word of authority? Generally is not going to cut it. For God is not the author of confusion.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
I believe your position to be Bible agnostic. You believe there is a Word of God but you really can't bring yourself to believe it completely. That you really can't trust the Bible 100%. But you will say that you can look to the original Hebrew and Greek, though. But that is the deception, though. The Tower of Babel. You don't know these languages. Nobody does. People are only guessing and they need English translations to help them to understand them. Also, does the Bible ever tell us that we have to look to a dead language to understand God's Word, though. Does the Bible ever allude to the fact that we have to compare many different versions of the Word of God to get to the truth of His Word? Or does the Bible tell us that we can know God's Word? Or does the Bible tell us that it is singular and not plural?
 
Last edited:

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
Given the above, I don't understand why you have a problem answering this question:

Do you acknowledge there are differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

As you have already demonstrated, your variety of faith is such that no amount of discussion or evidence will impinge on your ability to believe the KJV is the authoritative version of God's word, and is the standard to which all other versions must be compared. As such, your answer to be the above question can't possibility affect that, either. Why so non committal?

I have defined the terms, and you have not denied that the Byzantine Majority Text (either that used by Robinson, or Hodges) and the Received Text (either Stephanus 1st, 2nd or 3rd eds, or Beza, or Scrivener) are both extant texts. It's a very simple question that, yet again, I will remind you was brought on directly by YOU asking me to prove a comment I made directed to Deadtosin.

In answer to your otherwise off topic argument, I'm interested in what you think of this, Jason. I posted this to you twice in other threads, but never heard a reply. It bears directly on your discussion about what it means for something to be 'God's Word'.

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had been most slightly and convenient; [Plutarch in Camillo.] was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra, and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the latter) [Ezra 3:12] notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks?

The like we are to think of Translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?

Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are sure Tertullian was of another mind: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? [Tertul. de praescript. contra haereses.] Do we try men's faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine's third book De doctrina Christiana. [S. August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.]

To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
I don't think you understand how my belief system works. There is a huge difference between Historical Science and Observable Science, here is a video on that will hopefully help you to understand where I am coming from:

[video=youtube;LY1-NPYQSiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY1-NPYQSiQ[/video]

See, what you are basing your basing your faith upon is hear say on what these manuscripts are about. The only way you can truly prove they are genuine is if they show that they are divine. My focus on what a document is called or what it includes is not relevant because I have faith in God's Word in a language I do understand (i.e. the English). I can test it and see that it is divine and it is not a trick or an illusion. God's Word is divinely inspired. But looking to manuscripts that are flawed is not the answer. Looking to what some guy wrote about them is not the key.
 
Last edited:

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
And you're still not answering my question... :/

I am not, at this point, interested in arguing all these other things with you Jason. I WILL, though, if you answer the question I have repeatedly asked you, which has nothing to do with historical vs observational science (because both texts can be observed, and don't require you to try and reconstruct them historically) or to do with having faith (because you've as much as said that the answer to the question can't possibly afffect your faith in one way or another, as much as it won't impact mine).

The only reason I'm pushing this is because it was a demand for 'proof' of the differences that we began this conversation. I've given you the proof, it's up to you whether you want to engage with it or not. You can read the differences for yourself.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
And you're still not answering my question... :/

I am not, at this point, interested in arguing all these other things with you Jason. I WILL, though, if you answer the question I have repeatedly asked you, which has nothing to do with historical vs observational science (because both texts can be observed, and don't require you to try and reconstruct them historically) or to do with having faith (because you've as much as said that the answer to the question can't possibly afffect your faith in one way or another, as much as it won't impact mine).

The only reason I'm pushing this is because it was a demand for 'proof' of the differences that we began this conversation. I've given you the proof, it's up to you whether you want to engage with it or not. You can read the differences for yourself.
I am here to talk about the Bible. Not speculate about it's authencity. If you can't defend your position Biblically with the Word of God then I want no part of it. For Jesus and the apostles never argued over which manuscripts or words were the Word of God. They never told me to look to a dead language to understand His Word. They never said how I must look at multiple Words of God (Which sows confusion). What you are doing is leading me away from God's Word. And I want no part of it. Prove your case with the Bible or you have no case at all. I am not interested in questions whereby you can't defend that question with Scripture.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
I am here to talk about the Bible. Not speculate about it's authencity. If you can't defend your position Biblically with the Word of God then I want no part of it. For Jesus and the apostles never argued over which manuscripts or words were the Word of God. They never told me to look to a dead language to understand His Word. They never said how I must look at multiple Words of God (Which sows confusion). What you are doing is leading me away from God's Word. And I want no part of it. Prove your case with the Bible or you have no case at all. I am not interested in questions whereby you can't defend that question with Scripture.
And yet this whole discussion started becase you asked me to prove my position on a TEXTUAL issue. Funny how that works.

But look, it's really as simple as this - nothing you have quoted from the Scriptures requires me to first of all believe that God would make the KJV the only standard, and the only authority. There is nothing even to suggest that he says a particular manuscript will survive throughout all time, either the autograph or a copy with no errors. Rather, the word of the Lord stands - his commands endure, he will not be thwarted. If you wish to actually discuss the passages you use in support of your claim, let's get down to some exegesis. You go first.

As you next note, Jesus and the apostles never argued about which manuscripts or words were the Word of God, correct. Because they got on with the business of mission, quoting from the Greek Septuagint, from the Masoretic Hebrew Text, and other variations on those two, all considering it the word of God (Paul was particularly noteworthy in this regard). The KJV translators themselves acknowledge this fact, and draw an analogy to the proclamations of King James - even when translated, and even when erring in such, the essence of the King's command is in the totality of the proclamation, not simply in this or that word.

The TR, the Majority Text, the KJV, even the Latin Vulgate are all based on multiple manuscripts. They did indeed 'look to multiple words of God.', and not just any one document. Did this sow confusion? Well, I suppose you could argue it might have been simpler if God had only permitted one copy of the Bible ever, or only allowed copies that were always identical, perhaps in the same way it would have been simpler if God hadn't created people. But he did. And he didn't. And while study is required, there is not confusion. The only people who sow confusion are those like yourself, who divide the church along lines that it had basically never been divided on until the 19th century, who say that the KJV is the standard, and cause those weak in their faiths to stumble, wondering if indeed God's words only subsist in that translation. Not Jesus, nor the disciples, nor Erasmus, nor the KJV committee, nor even John Burgon, would have a bar of it.

Given your non responsiveness, I'm simply going to assume you have noticed there are differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, I will therefore assume you hold to a KJV-Inspiration line, and that you believe the KJV either has its own inspiration, or had access to a special line of tradition that has been lost and to which no one has access since. That being the case, what is your proof that the KJV, alone among translations, has that special authoritative status?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
And yet this whole discussion started becase you asked me to prove my position on a TEXTUAL issue. Funny how that works.

But look, it's really as simple as this - nothing you have quoted from the Scriptures requires me to first of all believe that God would make the KJV the only standard, and the only authority. There is nothing even to suggest that he says a particular manuscript will survive throughout all time, either the autograph or a copy with no errors. Rather, the word of the Lord stands - his commands endure, he will not be thwarted. If you wish to actually discuss the passages you use in support of your claim, let's get down to some exegesis. You go first.

As you next note, Jesus and the apostles never argued about which manuscripts or words were the Word of God, correct. Because they got on with the business of mission, quoting from the Greek Septuagint, from the Masoretic Hebrew Text, and other variations on those two, all considering it the word of God (Paul was particularly noteworthy in this regard). The KJV translators themselves acknowledge this fact, and draw an analogy to the proclamations of King James - even when translated, and even when erring in such, the essence of the King's command is in the totality of the proclamation, not simply in this or that word.

The TR, the Majority Text, the KJV, even the Latin Vulgate are all based on multiple manuscripts. They did indeed 'look to multiple words of God.', and not just any one document. Did this sow confusion? Well, I suppose you could argue it might have been simpler if God had only permitted one copy of the Bible ever, or only allowed copies that were always identical, perhaps in the same way it would have been simpler if God hadn't created people. But he did. And he didn't. And while study is required, there is not confusion. The only people who sow confusion are those like yourself, who divide the church along lines that it had basically never been divided on until the 19th century, who say that the KJV is the standard, and cause those weak in their faiths to stumble, wondering if indeed God's words only subsist in that translation. Not Jesus, nor the disciples, nor Erasmus, nor the KJV committee, nor even John Burgon, would have a bar of it.

Given your non responsiveness, I'm simply going to assume you have noticed there are differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, I will therefore assume you hold to a KJV-Inspiration line, and that you believe the KJV either has its own inspiration, or had access to a special line of tradition that has been lost and to which no one has access since. That being the case, what is your proof that the KJV, alone among translations, has that special authoritative status?

There differences among the texts of the manuscripts does not prove anything. When God's Word says it is perfect and that it endures forever, I believe that. Again, this is called "Faith." The real manuscripts of the Word of God in the orignal Hebrew and Greek (That lines up with the KJV) could either be forever lost and or not yet discovered. There are a dozen possible explanations. But I do not need them because I have faith. And after taking that step of faith, I can easily see the observable evidences.

Also, seeing I am not going to answer your question because I believe it to be un-Biblical, why don't you just provide me with proof or evdience that proves your side of the argument?
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
Also, seeing I am not going to answer your question because I believe it to be un-Biblical, why don't you just provide me with proof or evdience that proves your side of the argument?
For what, that there are differences between the Majority Text and Received Text?
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
For Jesus and the apostles never argued over which manuscripts or words were the Word of God. They never told me to look to a dead language to understand His Word.
Of course, we are talking here of OT manuscripts since all or most of the NT had not been written yet.

Paul preached from Greek manuscripts because that is the language the people he preached to understood. He also was fluent in Hebrew. Obviously he knew that the Greek manuscripts he preached from were not identical to the Hebrew manuscripts. Paul knew that the Greek manuscripts were not divinely inspired and the infallible Word of God.

The Greek manuscripts Paul used were a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew to the Greek. Not divinely inspired and not infallible or perfect. And again, he knew it.

Just as the KJV is a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew and Greek to English. Not divinely inspired and not infallible or perfect. The NASB likewise is a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew and Greek to English.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Yes there are translational issues. The reality of my decision to go KJV is not in regards to translation. It's transcription. I only trust the thousands of manuscripts that agree with eachother. The majority texts, which of course is where the Textus Receptus comes from. The advantage to the KJV over other majority text translations is that the translational errors are well documented, so there aren't really any translational surprises yet. Again though, keyword Transcription.
Is that what the convict (Kent Hovind) told you?

You said: "I only trust the thousands of manuscripts that agree with each other."

No, they don't agree with each other, if you are talking about the over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts. And "new" Greek manuscripts are still being discovered, which will continue to happen.

Who is to say that caves full of 2000 year old manuscripts won't be discovered? It's not like it hasn't happened before.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
For what, that there are differences between the Majority Text and Received Text?
See, what you are asking me to believe is if the documents you are talking about are 100% reliable and trust worthy. That is an assumption you are making. If the MT and RT we have today are perfect and without error today, then we should be able to test those manuscripts in there here and now to show that it is divinely inspired. Just claiming there are differences between two different sets of manuscripts doesn't prove anything. Some people call the majority text the Westcott and Hort text. Others call the Majority text something else. People just make stuff up. They just call stuff whatever they want. People can also create false manuscripts so as to attack God's Word thru out history, too. For there are Modern Translations that are corrupted. The same is true of manuscripts in the past. To assume that not all manuscripts are not corrupted is just dumb. How do you determine what is true or not true? Do you have a special device that beeps over those words or manuscripts that are wrong or corrupted? Does having close to the Word of God thru out history truly count? What if the true manuscripts of God's Word for the Hebrew or Greek have been lost or hidden somewhere? What if we just discovered them today that backs up the KJV as the preserved divinely inspired Word of God for our day? What then? Wouldn't your question be totally irrelevant?

Also, shouldn't we see examples of your position in the Word of God? You know, we should believers defending the idea that the Word of God is not perfect. We should believers requiring believers to study another language. We should see believers holding to the view that there are many Words of God that say close to the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
Of course, we are talking here of OT manuscripts since all or most of the NT had not been written yet.

Paul preached from Greek manuscripts because that is the language the people he preached to understood. He also was fluent in Hebrew. Obviously he knew that the Greek manuscripts he preached from were not identical to the Hebrew manuscripts. Paul knew that the Greek manuscripts were not divinely inspired and the infallible Word of God.

The Greek manuscripts Paul used were a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew to the Greek. Not divinely inspired and not infallible or perfect. And again, he knew it.

Just as the KJV is a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew and Greek to English. Not divinely inspired and not infallible or perfect. The NASB likewise is a RELIABLE translation of the Hebrew and Greek to English.
It is true that Paul used OT Scripture. But the manuscripts he used were not flawed. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says that they (the disciples) received the Word not as the words of men, but as the very words of God. They didn't believe the Word was flawed or imperfect. Peter quotes OT Scripture and says the grass withers and the flower fades, but the Word of God endures forever. They didn't believe the Word was flawed. If you believe that, then you need to show a verse that states that. For you are saying they knew the Scriptures were not divinely inspired. But 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. See, what you teach and what the Bible teach are two different things. So when you say that Paul knew the Scriptures were not inspired, then maybe you should have told him not to write those words that we would recognize today as 2 Timothy 3:16.

Oh, and the KJV is not just close to being good or close to being the Word of God. It is the Word of God for our day. Perfect, and divinely inspired thru out time. The NASB is not a reliable translation because it says in Revelation 13:1 that the dragon is standing on the seashore when it should say the word "I" (As in reference to John speaking of himself) standing on the seashore. Read Genesis 22:17. God tells Abraham that he shall multipy his seed like the stars of the sky and like the sand on the seashore and that his seed will possess the gate of his enemies. See, in Bible language. Standing on something means you own it. The devil wants to own you. So that's why he puts his name (Dragon) in his corrupt Bible so as to deceive you. He wants you to believe that he is the one standing on the seashore and inheriting the promise and not John.
 
Last edited: