String's, Westcott and Hort, Thayer's...
- Thread starter Dai3234
- Start date
-
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.
You try printing bibles using thousands of metal pins, and see if you get selling a 100%.
It isn't just about the KJV. Stop clumping people as KJV only. If there was a truly accurate modern English translation of the KJV Hebrew and Greek texts, I don't think I could see a problem.
But we DON'T HAVE ONE. Because of the text additions and removals of new versions.
So, thanks for the point, but until I have a new accurate KJV text version, I'll stick with KJV, until then? Which I don't expect to see anytime soon.
It isn't just about the KJV. Stop clumping people as KJV only. If there was a truly accurate modern English translation of the KJV Hebrew and Greek texts, I don't think I could see a problem.
But we DON'T HAVE ONE. Because of the text additions and removals of new versions.
So, thanks for the point, but until I have a new accurate KJV text version, I'll stick with KJV, until then? Which I don't expect to see anytime soon.
I am still waiting for those verses in the ESV NIV or whatever bible version that say Jesus is a liar. Are we going to get to that? Or do we have more wild accusations with no evidence to make?
I am starting to suspect that the verse is not there. Or maybe it was, and the catholics used the mandela effect to change our Bibles so now it looks like it is not there anymore.
I am starting to suspect that the verse is not there. Or maybe it was, and the catholics used the mandela effect to change our Bibles so now it looks like it is not there anymore.
We need to be clear about something. When we say that the Traditional Texts represent the majority of existing manuscripts, that does not automatically mean that an actual MAJORITY TEXT has already been created. "Byzantine Text" and "Received Text" can be used interchangeably, but the so-called Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad is NOT a true Majority Text, since neither they (nor anyone else) has actually collated all of the existing manuscripts as yet. That was already sabotaged by the Westcott-Hort theory in that they claimed that they had the "purest" Greek text in their hands. Which is totally false.
Although such men as Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford had done much to undermine the position of the TR (Textus Receptus), Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the deathblow, beginning a new era. Many scholars have written to this effect, but Colwell expresses it as well as anyone.
"The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. After Hort, the late medieval Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort's success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—and still shapes—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language."
And that explains the nature and extent of the common divergence of the modern versions from the AV (King James Version)—they are all based essentially on the W-H theory and text whereas the AV is essentially based on the Textus Receptus.
Chapter 3
However, for all practical purposes the Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek texts are representative of the texts of the Bible. And those texts are to be found in the Reformation Bibles (including the KJB).
Although such men as Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford had done much to undermine the position of the TR (Textus Receptus), Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the deathblow, beginning a new era. Many scholars have written to this effect, but Colwell expresses it as well as anyone.
"The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. After Hort, the late medieval Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort's success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—and still shapes—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language."
And that explains the nature and extent of the common divergence of the modern versions from the AV (King James Version)—they are all based essentially on the W-H theory and text whereas the AV is essentially based on the Textus Receptus.
Chapter 3
However, for all practical purposes the Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek texts are representative of the texts of the Bible. And those texts are to be found in the Reformation Bibles (including the KJB).
Last edited:
Dai my friend. Please try to reason with me here.
You are comparing the KJV, an english translation to NASB, which is another english translation. The other one does not have "verses missing" per say. The reason it does not include those verses is that it is translated from different manuscripts, which you know since you brought that up.
So now that you know that it is about the original language manuscripts, and not translations, the next logical step is to spend time learning which manuscripts are more credible, older, numerous, and reliable.
After you do this, then you can make a smart choice on which bible translation you prefer.
You are comparing the KJV, an english translation to NASB, which is another english translation. The other one does not have "verses missing" per say. The reason it does not include those verses is that it is translated from different manuscripts, which you know since you brought that up.
So now that you know that it is about the original language manuscripts, and not translations, the next logical step is to spend time learning which manuscripts are more credible, older, numerous, and reliable.
After you do this, then you can make a smart choice on which bible translation you prefer.
As I have told you before - I have intensively studied Greek for 2 years of courses, under some of the top Greek scholars in the world, which includes memorizing grammar, vocabulary and doing translations. I have tools to read Greek, including lexicons, exegetical summaries, and discussions about translational issues. I receive (except Sunday) Daily Dose of Greek, which goes through the Bible verse by verse in Greek, just to keep brushed up on the Greek grammar, especially. I read a chapter of the NT in Greek daily. I also have quite a few current books on the new knowledge that is recently understood about Greek translational issues. I spend at least an hour a day on Greek. That is down, because I am currently studying German, which I need for a PhD in theology.
As far as KJ English, not so much. There are no lexicons to explain KJ English. I've never found a grammar on KJ English. There is no way to study it.
In fact, because I am so aware of language, because of the 5 languages I speak and/or read, that is EXACTLY the reason why I cannot use KJV. I am not content to breeze over words I do not understand. I am not willing to use a translation that tries to follow Greek word order, but without cases to show where they belong in the sentence. Or verb forms that do not exist in English anymore.
BUT, even if I could get, and wanted to properly study KJ English, I would not give it the time of day. The reason is because I have read too much about manuscripts and evidence for the best possible option that was there in the original autographs, which do not exist today. By comparing almost 6000 NT manuscripts, a lot of conclusions can be drawn, which were not an option on the much later and corrupted 7 texts used by the KJV translation committee! No, the committee for translating the KJV did not use a "majority text" but rather some bad copies of bad copies of bad copies. Byzantine scribes were notorious for adding comments, which were added into the text, conflating the manuscripts. They were notorious for "harmonizing" sections of Scripture, instead of copying the early texts correctly. And being human, they made mistakes, too. Sometimes they didn't see or hear the passage correctly. (Often families of the Byzantine manuscripts were dictated, which resulted in wrong letters and even words being written). So gradually, more and more errors cropped up in these later manuscripts, which were not there in the early versions of the Alexandrian/Western, etc manuscripts.
My Greek UBS Bible has all the possible alternatives for each section in the Greek. And, if every single manuscript says the same thing, which many do, it makes a note of that, too!
I guess I have to chuckle at your blind ignorance, that you think you understand the KJV. I'll bet my bottom dollar, that in fact, you are not understanding a lot of what you are reading. But your slavish devotion to a translation, keeps you from really questioning what you are reading.
I have no problem with other people using KJV, if that is what they like for any reason. And, there are NO doctrinal changes arising out of modern versions. A major doctrine in the KJV is always the same in the modern versions. But, even when people post in KJV here, it is more or less gibberish to me. Just too many words I have never studied. In fact, in church, I use Biblegateway, so I can read the passages in Greek. Lately, I have been reading in German, since I have a keen interest in that language now. In fact, in our passages today, Jude 1-2, I thought the German did a better job of translating the Greek, because English, like it or not, often follows the traditions of the KJV, rather than the Greek text.
But then, you probably just scan my posts to refute them. Read KJV 1611, if that works for you. But, do not say the modern versions downgrade the deity of Christ, or other nonsense being posted by the OP, (not addressing you here, John!) when you have no knowledge of the original langauges.
And some people will believe any old lie, when they are told that if they do not use it they are not saved!? Did you not read my second post? It brings up a lot of issues about not just the KJV, but these conspiracy theories you have bought into.
In fact, KJV is NOT written at a grade 4-5 level. I cannot read it, and I have a Master of Divinity. (And a Bachelor's degree and a teacher's certificate, another 5 years of post secondary study!) There are far too many differences between the English of the 16th century, and modern English. As for your name calling, not a teenager, but 64. I have read the Bible from cover to cover over 50 times, in many different versions and languages. That includes the Greek NT and some Hebrew from the Masoretic OT, and some Greek from the LXX. I am not lazy, because I have read up on the manuscript issues, compared KJV to the original languages, including Hebrew, and found it to be lacking in so many ways.
So, have you ever read a modern version? Even a stilted version like ESV or NASB, which follow the KJV traditions? My Greek professor quit the ESV, because they would not allow the committee to translate the Lord's Prayer from Greek to English, but wanted them to slightly modernize the KJV, instead, which is far from the Greek!
I have no problem with anyone reading a KJV at all. If they read it from cover to cover, and are able to study it, that is great. But, don't come on here spouting Riplinger and Ruckman garbage, and tell us that ONLY the KJV is the right one! Especially when you have been brainwashed, you have no objectivity at all, never having studied other versions or the very real issues with the Byzantine manuscripts.
Perhaps, instead of watching questionable youtube videos, you should study Greek. Even basic Greek would show you how different the KJV version can be from the original languages. I challenge you to educate yourself on both sides of this issue. And by all means, continuing reading the KJV. If God speaks to you from its pages, and you read daily, that is better than someone with a stack of Bibles who never looks at one of them.
As for me, I will stick with versions in my heart language, modern English, and the original languages.
Hello Dai3234...
The original 1611 printings of the KJV used different forms of letters than we use today. What we call a "u", they would call a 'v'. What we call an 's' might have looked more like an 'f' without the crossbar. Many words in 1611 had 'e' on the end where today they don't. There is far more going on than mere typesetter error, though that happened as well. What you are familiar with is probably the 1769 revision of the KJV, which among other things, updated the spelling.
The NT of the KJV was translated into English primarily from seven printed Greek editions (five of Erasmus, plus Stephanus and Beza). The translators also considered earlier English editions, including Tyndale, Bishop's, Great, and Coverdale, and editions in other languages. They did not use Greek manuscripts directly. Erasmus used manuscripts, and they used Erasmus' editions.
What you call "text additions and removals" is only relevant in comparison with the KJV. Since you are familiar with the KJV, you consider that where a modern translation has additional words, those words were added, and where the modern is missing words, that words were removed. While completely understandable, your view is also based on a logical fallacy. Simply put, you are assuming the accuracy of the KJV and using it as your standard. I began with an NIV, so if I were to follow your logic, I would consider the KJV translators to have "removed" the passages where the NIV has extra, and to have "added" where the NIV doesn't have them. Neither is sound, logically.
In order to ascertain correctly which words should be there and which shouldn't, you must go to a source external to both the KJV and the modern versions, and see what is there, or isn't. That is the work of textual criticism: trying to figure out exactly what the disciples wrote.
You may, of course, ignore all that, and just keep claiming that "modern translators removed words from the Bible" but your opinion would hold no intellectual weight. Anyone with understanding of the subject would brush it aside. I don't use the KJV as my primary Bible, but I am comfortable with it, so I see no problem with others using it. However, if you are going to defend it, please at least do some homework on the issues... using credible sources from a variety of perspectives.
The original 1611 printings of the KJV used different forms of letters than we use today. What we call a "u", they would call a 'v'. What we call an 's' might have looked more like an 'f' without the crossbar. Many words in 1611 had 'e' on the end where today they don't. There is far more going on than mere typesetter error, though that happened as well. What you are familiar with is probably the 1769 revision of the KJV, which among other things, updated the spelling.
The NT of the KJV was translated into English primarily from seven printed Greek editions (five of Erasmus, plus Stephanus and Beza). The translators also considered earlier English editions, including Tyndale, Bishop's, Great, and Coverdale, and editions in other languages. They did not use Greek manuscripts directly. Erasmus used manuscripts, and they used Erasmus' editions.
What you call "text additions and removals" is only relevant in comparison with the KJV. Since you are familiar with the KJV, you consider that where a modern translation has additional words, those words were added, and where the modern is missing words, that words were removed. While completely understandable, your view is also based on a logical fallacy. Simply put, you are assuming the accuracy of the KJV and using it as your standard. I began with an NIV, so if I were to follow your logic, I would consider the KJV translators to have "removed" the passages where the NIV has extra, and to have "added" where the NIV doesn't have them. Neither is sound, logically.
In order to ascertain correctly which words should be there and which shouldn't, you must go to a source external to both the KJV and the modern versions, and see what is there, or isn't. That is the work of textual criticism: trying to figure out exactly what the disciples wrote.
You may, of course, ignore all that, and just keep claiming that "modern translators removed words from the Bible" but your opinion would hold no intellectual weight. Anyone with understanding of the subject would brush it aside. I don't use the KJV as my primary Bible, but I am comfortable with it, so I see no problem with others using it. However, if you are going to defend it, please at least do some homework on the issues... using credible sources from a variety of perspectives.
You've been "educated" out of your belief in the word of God. You always give your credentials. Why is that?
The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.
The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.
Hi Bogadie,
There's is no bible verses we can read directly that says Jesus is a liar. What has been posted is this is to make Jesus as a liar as I would understand.
Case in a point, numerous Bible versions says in Luke 4:4 that Man shall not live by bread alone making Jesus as a liar. For it says in its cross reference that there's a need for every word of God Deut. 8:3.
New International Version
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People do not live by bread alone.'"
English Standard Version
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Berean Study Bible
But Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus answered to him, "It has been written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
New American Standard Bible
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"
Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."
NET Bible
Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"
New Heart English Bible
Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus answered him, "Scripture says, 'A person cannot live on bread alone.' "
New American Standard 1977
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’”
American Standard Version
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
English Revised Version
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
Weymouth New Testament
"It is written," replied Jesus, "'It is not on bread alone that a man shall live.'"
God bless
There's is no bible verses we can read directly that says Jesus is a liar. What has been posted is this is to make Jesus as a liar as I would understand.
Case in a point, numerous Bible versions says in Luke 4:4 that Man shall not live by bread alone making Jesus as a liar. For it says in its cross reference that there's a need for every word of God Deut. 8:3.
New International Version
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People do not live by bread alone.'"
English Standard Version
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Berean Study Bible
But Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus answered to him, "It has been written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"
New American Standard Bible
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"
Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone."
NET Bible
Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"
New Heart English Bible
Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus answered him, "Scripture says, 'A person cannot live on bread alone.' "
New American Standard 1977
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’”
American Standard Version
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
English Revised Version
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
Weymouth New Testament
"It is written," replied Jesus, "'It is not on bread alone that a man shall live.'"
God bless
Perfect example of what I am talking about "English translation of the KJV Hebrew and Greek texts" the KJV is an English translation of the Hebrew text for the Old Testament and it uses the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. Which was put to gether in the 16th century. In the winter of 1899-1900 there were 26,000 to 30,000 papryi found that helped us understand the koiné Greek more, then what was understood in the 1604-1611 when the KJV was translated from the Greek manuscripts.
The reality is that any translation is a commantary of the original language, especially when it comes to the English translations. Because English is not a picturesque language or a love language, the reason the Latin Valgate was so popular is because it is a close word for word, phrase for phrase translation. A Spanish translation from the Greek would be close as well, but English has a big gap to fill.
If you do some research some say that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Textare pretty much the same. But to say that the KJV is a better translation of the original manuscipts, then a modern translation, is turing a blind eye to the fact that the understanding of the koiné Greek is much better now than it was in 1604-1611. It also makes your god is to small, because you can not believe that the God that created the heavens and earth by the word of His mouth, does not have enough power to keep His word pure enough for the Holy Spirit to move in the hearts of His people to understand and know His true treachings.
I was a KJV only guy the first 6 years of my walk with the Lord, then the NKJV, which I still use and the ESV, I've also used the NEB, Phillips, YLT, NASB, The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear, and have been using the HCSB lately as well. I like using the BAGD Lexicon as well to understand the koiné Greek words with the 3rd and 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament where I can, still learning, long way to go.
I do not like using the KJV, but that is me, if someone uses it and is not open to a more up dated translation of a word, they have closed their minds to the truth. Many words do not mean the same thing they did as little as 40 - 50 years ago, like "gay" does not mean, "lighthearted and carefree" anymore. Like "by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." in the KJV the first time I read this I had to look it up in a modern translation, here it is in the NKJV "by morning light no males would have been left to Nabal!" This is from I Samual 25:34, this really through me off, I mean dogs pee against the wall
The reality is that any translation is a commantary of the original language, especially when it comes to the English translations. Because English is not a picturesque language or a love language, the reason the Latin Valgate was so popular is because it is a close word for word, phrase for phrase translation. A Spanish translation from the Greek would be close as well, but English has a big gap to fill.
If you do some research some say that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Textare pretty much the same. But to say that the KJV is a better translation of the original manuscipts, then a modern translation, is turing a blind eye to the fact that the understanding of the koiné Greek is much better now than it was in 1604-1611. It also makes your god is to small, because you can not believe that the God that created the heavens and earth by the word of His mouth, does not have enough power to keep His word pure enough for the Holy Spirit to move in the hearts of His people to understand and know His true treachings.
I was a KJV only guy the first 6 years of my walk with the Lord, then the NKJV, which I still use and the ESV, I've also used the NEB, Phillips, YLT, NASB, The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear, and have been using the HCSB lately as well. I like using the BAGD Lexicon as well to understand the koiné Greek words with the 3rd and 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament where I can, still learning, long way to go.
I do not like using the KJV, but that is me, if someone uses it and is not open to a more up dated translation of a word, they have closed their minds to the truth. Many words do not mean the same thing they did as little as 40 - 50 years ago, like "gay" does not mean, "lighthearted and carefree" anymore. Like "by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." in the KJV the first time I read this I had to look it up in a modern translation, here it is in the NKJV "by morning light no males would have been left to Nabal!" This is from I Samual 25:34, this really through me off, I mean dogs pee against the wall
