King James Bible

[Nehemiah6]

... The Majority Text is okay....

Sure. If you love what the modern text critics love. There are hundreds of deviations from the Received Text. Are they justified?

 

[ResidentAlien]

And this is total BS.

LOL, okay. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Post one scripture that has been modified by the NKJV that you say significantly altered the meaning from the KJV.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I found an interesting quote from Constantin von Tischendorf—the "discoverer" of the Sinaitic manuscript—which is very enlightening. It's from his When Were Our Gospels Written? (1866). This was 20 years after his "discovery."

"Learned men have again and again attempted to clear the sacred text from these extraneous elements. But we have at last hit upon a better plan even than this, which is to set aside this textus receptus altogether, and to construct a fresh text, derived immediately from the most ancient and authoritative sources. This is undoubtedly the right course to take, for in this way only can we secure a text approximating as closely as possible to that which came from the Apostles." pp. 21-22​

Notice what he says: "set aside this textus receptus altogether."

Does this sound like honest textual criticism?

Actually it does sound like a true and honest criticism when we considered these other facts to go along with your quoted portion:



from the Christian Publishing House:
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION

BY
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholar

Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.


How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.

Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.

*

from Angela:
Erasmus found no late Greek manuscripts that had 1 John 5:8. It was added to the Latin Vulgate. He begged the pope to allow him to eliminate verse 8, which scholars agree is 100% spurious. The Pope would not allow Erasmus to delete it, because it seemed so important for Trinitarian theology! Plus, Erasmus was in a hurry to get his translation out before his competitor did. It was worth a great deal of money and prestige, publishing first. In order to get the Imprimatur stamp of approval, he had to leave verse 8 in. Erasmus was a Catholic priest, and didn't want to disobey someone higher up in hierarchy. So he sacrificed accuracy for get his version printed first! This is a definite mistake in the KJV.

 

[Dirtman]

If one believes the received text is inspired then one would have to believe Erasmus to be inspired and therefore a prophet. If so then all the things he said about free will and about the Papacy is also inspired, so you would have to be an Arminian and a Catholic, but the Catholic rejects the KJV so then that would mean Erasmus wasnt inspired and therefore the received text also not inspired. Which would open you up to being protestant and able to accept the KJV.

 

[Dirtman]

LOL, okay. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Post one scripture that has been modified by the NKJV that you say significantly altered the meaning from the KJV.

They arent going to. If they by some stretch do. When you look in a greek or hebrew lexicon it will not support the KJV and will likely agree with the NKJV and they will make some kind of weird dismissive argument and move on. And so the debate continues on because its not about text or inspiration. Its about feelings and attachment and the very normal human response to being wrong; self justification.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

I see no evidence of "political bias". Of COURSE I don't pay any attention to the KJVO Foolishness, since all major Bibles say the same things sometimes using different words, but changing NOTHING of importance. The KJV has been my "Main Squeeze" for over 70 years, and I know most the workarounds for the areas of lousy translation, so no need to go anywhere else for God's written Word.

Y'all can do whatever lights your fire.

 

[persistent]

I see no evidence of "political bias". Of COURSE I don't pay any attention to the KJVO Foolishness, since all major Bibles say the same things sometimes using different words, but changing NOTHING of importance. The KJV has been my "Main Squeeze" for over 70 years, and I know most the workarounds for thef areas of lousy translation, so no need to go anywhere else for God's written Word.
Y'all can do whatever lights your fire.

You have been reading the Bible your entire life sounds like. Us former atheistic, agnostic former Catholics that wouldn't have known a Bible from a comic book find the KJV almost incomprehensible. Particularly, since Catholic mass back in the50's and 60's was in Latin and I sure didn't know and didn't care to know what the priest was doing or saying. But now I agree with what you say, that all the translations say pretty much the same thing as regards the Gospel of Christ. But I have also found out that some Protestant preachers are really just Slick Willy's.

 

[John146]

I see no evidence of "political bias". Of COURSE I don't pay any attention to the KJVO Foolishness, since all major Bibles say the same things sometimes using different words, but changing NOTHING of importance. The KJV has been my "Main Squeeze" for over 70 years, and I know most the workarounds for the areas of lousy translation, so no need to go anywhere else for God's written Word.

Y'all can do whatever lights your fire.

Changes in truth, even minor truth, can have consequences.

 

[persistent]

Changes in truth, even minor truth, can have consequences.

You said it. That's why I don't rely on any one translation.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Changes in truth, even minor truth, can have consequences.

List them - if you know of any.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

But I have also found out that some Protestant preachers are really just Slick Willy's.

No argument there, Y'all. Bottom line: If you're NOT FAMILIAR with the contents of the Bible, that you're FAIR GAME for deception. And I'm NOT talking about "Theological degree" level understanding - JUST READ IT.

 

[Dino246]

Sure. If you love what the modern text critics love. There are hundreds of deviations from the Received Text. Are they justified?

Again, you misrepresent the facts.

Differences are not "deviations from the Received Text". To be so, we would have to be certain that the Received Text matches the text penned by the apostles. We cannot be certain of that.

 

[Dino246]

Changes in truth, even minor truth, can have consequences.

Yet you are unable to demonstrate any actual consequences arising from any difference. You only have speculations.

 

[John146]

List them - if you know of any.

Simple one...

There is truth to be known in Luke 10:1. Did the Lord appoint and send out 70 or 72?

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV - After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

 

[John146]

Yet you are unable to demonstrate any actual consequences arising from any difference. You only have speculations.

The consequence is the reliability of the scripture. If scripture is untrue in one place, how can we trust it in others? )An actual argument I have addressed with lost and saved people.)

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Simple one...

There is truth to be known in Luke 10:1. Did the Lord appoint and send out 70 or 72?

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV - After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

SO nothing of importance, then - That the best you can do????

 

[Dino246]

The consequence is the reliability of the scripture. If scripture is untrue in one place, how can we trust it in others? )An actual argument I have addressed with lost and saved people.)

As you know, the KJV is internally inconsistent regarding the age of Ahaziah at his accession to the throne. Therefore, to your question, the KJV is not trustworthy.

Care to try again with a real consequence that arises from differences between the KJV and other translations? That is your core assertion, after all.

 

[Lanolin]

I am sure there are bloopers and printing errors in many Bibles but have never lost sleep over anything in the KJV.

NIV is another story...probably the worst one to study IMHO. Jesus is often downgraded in that one and it reads like he was just trying to be the son of God and hoping for a promotion to be Christ.
CEV is very dumbed down, and the ICB, I only read as far as Genesis and it turned out they worded it so that God was going to kill Moses.

I was going huh ?!

NASB is also very confusing too much americanisms.

Im not going to waste more time on reading fake Bibles. But you find one that speaks to you, pray about it and and stick with it. We just saying, that most christians who are solid in their walk just prefer KJV.

 

[persistent]

As you know, the KJV is internally inconsistent regarding the age of Ahaziah at his accession to the throne. Therefore, to your question, the KJV is not trustworthy.

Care to try again with a real consequence that arises from differences between the KJV and other translations? That is your core assertion, after all.

I would venture a guess that all the translations can lead us in the right direction if we want to be led. I know in my own situation I had no desire to relinquish my prerogative to be in charge of my own life. Who wants to serve God? Like my Catholic neighbor once said, 'it sounds like you are supposed to give up everything and live in the woods'. She is a life long Catholic and that statement of hers tells me that at least her form of religion is a fraud, but I encourage her and hubby to read their Catholic Bible which they recently purchased. I have a Jerusalem Bible (Catholic oriented I believe) and it reads quite differently and possibly like a Catholic Bible, but the true intent of each passage seems to get thru. It does seem that certain verses can have a kind of nuance to them and require prayer and meditation and possibly outside info, think Phillip and the Ethiopian here, to get the "true" meaning. In general the important thing to remember about the Bible is that for a lot of people it is a good place to hide money.

 

[John146]

SO nothing of importance, then - That the best you can do????

I knew it. Truth doesn't matter as long as it’s not important truth. If one point is wrong, why should one trust the rest? Daniel 3:25…

KJV - He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

ESV - He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”