The Bible debate

[RachelBibleStudent]

As for the original question to the date of the manuscripts...

It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. It's also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?" The modern translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England--B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origen's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.

this post is full of misinformation typical of the KJV only movement...

first of all...modern bible translations are based on the nestle-aland text of the new testament...not the outdated westcott-hort text...

your assertion that modern bibles are based on 'roman catholic manuscripts' is ironic...the scholar erasmus who compiled the textus receptus that the KJV is based on was a committed roman catholic who once said he would accept a notorious heresy if rome declared that it was true...he also considered the protestant reformation to be a disaster...

so much for the 'text of the protestant reformation'

your argument that the codex vaticanus included the apocrypha and omitted the pastoral epistles and revelation is also deeply ironic...the 1611 KJV included the apocrypha...and interestingly -not one- of the authentic texts erasmus referenced when compiling the textus receptus actually included the entire new testament without omissions...

your assertion about alexandrian texts has yet another irony...some of the texts used to produce the KJV were either alexandrian texts or strongly influenced by the alexandrian text type...and at times when the readings conflicted the alexandrian reading was sometimes favored...

finally there is no historical evidence connecting the manuscripts that form the basis of the textus receptus with the antiochian church...in most cases the trail of ownership ends at some monastery or private collector in medieval times...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

here is a list i made of the greek texts that the textus receptus was assembled from...

manuscripts used by erasmus in his first edition

miniscule 1...twelfth century manuscript containing the entire new testament except for revelation...byzantine text with many variants...earliest known owner was cardinal ragusio of the dominican order
miniscule 2...eleventh or twelfth century manuscript containing the gospels...byzantine text...earliest known owners were dominican monks who purchased the manuscript in basel switzerland
miniscule 7...twelfth century manuscript containing the gospels...byzantine text with alexandrian influences...history of the manuscript is unknown
miniscule 817...fifteenth century manuscript containing the gospels...byzantine text with a few variants...earliest known owner was the dominican monastery in basel
miniscule 2814...twelfth century manuscript containing the book of revelation...byzantine text...earliest known owner was the german humanist johann reuchlin
miniscule 2815...twelfth century manuscript containing the book of acts and the epistles...byzantine text...earliest known owner was the dominican order of the roman catholic church
miniscule 2816...fifteenth century manuscript containing the book of acts and the epistles...byzantine text...earliest known owner was the dominican monastery in basel
vulgate...latin translation of the entire bible...translated by jerome

additional manuscript introduced by erasmus in his second edition

miniscule 3...twelfth century manuscript containing the entire new testament except for revelation...byzantine text with variants especially in the general epistles...earliest known owner was the dutch roman catholic historian radulph of rivo

additional manuscript introduced by erasmus in his third edition

miniscule 61...sixteenth century manuscript containing the entire new testament...byzantine text with many variants in the epistles and revelation...blatant fabrication by a franciscan friar named froy...provides the sole greek textual basis for the disputed passage in 1 john 5:8...which is not present in the greek manuscript froy copied from

additional manuscripts used by stephanus in his edition of the textus receptus published after erasmus' last edition

miniscule 4...thirteenth century manuscript containing most of the gospels...mixed text with strong byzantine influences...history unknown
miniscule 5...thirteenth century manuscript containing the entire new testament except for revelation...byzantine text with a few variants mainly in luke...probably originated in calabria italy
miniscule 6...thirteenth century manuscript containing the entire new testament except for revelation...byzantine text in the gospels and acts and alexandrian text with many variants in the epistles...earliest known owner was the royal library of fontainebleau in paris
miniscule 8...eleventh century manuscript containing the gospels...byzantine text...earliest known owner was the royal secretary antonelli petrucci of naples
miniscule 9...twelfth century manuscript containing the gospels...byzantine text...earliest known owner was the french collector pierre de l'estoile
miniscule 2817...twelfth century manuscript containing most of paul's epistles and hebrews...byzantine text...history unknown
codex bezae...fifth century manuscript containing most of the gospels and acts and a fragment of third john...western text...earliest known owner was the monastic library of st. irenaeus in lyons france
codex regius...eighth century manuscript containing most of the gospels...alexandrian text with byzantine influences...history unknown

additional manuscripts introduced by beza in his second and later editions of the textus receptus

codex claromontanus...sixth century manuscript containing paul's epistles and hebrews...western text...earliest known owner was calvinist theologian theodore beza who acquired it in clermont france
syriac new testament...second century syriac version containing the entire new testament except for second peter and second and third john and jude and revelation...western text with byzantine influences...beza used a latin translation published by the italian calvinist scholar immanuel tremellius in 1569

 

[ChosenbyHim]

It was probably the kjv only cultists that caused this. You worship the book more than you do God typically.

We King James Only Bible believers worship God and we magnify and honour His holy word.

[HR][/HR]

On the contrary though, you Alexadnrian cultists and multiple conflicting perversionists rather continue in your utter rejection of Final Authority.


You alexandrians would rather continue in your error and willful disobedience rather than submit to the Authoirty of the word of God.

 

[Nautilus]

We King James Only Bible believers worship God and we magnify and honour His holy word.

[HR][/HR]

On the contrary though, you Alexadnrian cultists and multiple conflicting perversionists rather continue in your utter rejection of Final Authority.


You alexandrians would rather continue in your error and willful disobedience rather than submit to the Authoirty of the word of God.

Yep, youre right ruckmanist.

Also at what point do you people not figure out that no one here cares or is going to be converted to your cult?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Here are some great pictures that illustrate the truth of the Bible Version Issue:

 

[KJV1611]

I hear a lot of opinions that the KJV is not the inerrant word of God, but I have never seen one person produce one shred of evidence that it's true.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Yep, youre right ruckmanist.

Also at what point do you people not figure out that no one here cares or is going to be converted to your cult?

Whether you care or not Nautilus, the truth is still the truth. And that is that the modern versions are simply Satanic counterfeits produced by the Vatican.

 

[Nautilus]

welp guess ill just have to take my chances.

 

[phil112]

I hear a lot of opinions that the KJV is not the inerrant word of God, but I have never seen one person produce one shred of evidence that it's true.

Okay, I'll put something out there for you to think about. Now let me say up front: I absolutely do not believe there are any errors that affect doctrine, and from a doctrinal viewpoint it IS perfect.

Let me preface it with this well know scripture from Revelation 22:19.........And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.....Proverbs 30:6....Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar........And last, but not least, Deuteronomy 12:32......What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Here in three different places we are cautioned against adding to or taking away from God's word. Now, keep in mind, a caution has never been sufficient by itself, to keep man from perverting God's purpose, has it? Man will lust after the flesh and allow satan to control him. That will always result in direct disobedience of God's will. That is why there are so many different versions of the bible, and why I cling to the KJV, it is almost pure, but even it isn't completely safe from satan.

So, that being said, let me give you a couple of thoughts to dwell on.
1. Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people

Twenty nine times the greek word 3957 is used in the new testament. Twenty eight times it is translated "passover". One time only, it is translated "easter". That one got by the translators. Passover is NOT the same as easter.

Now, in 2 Kings 10:34 we find this: Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

There is no mention of Jehu doing anything else in Chronicles. Apparently something was left out.

Have fun with that.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

your assertion that modern bibles are based on 'roman catholic manuscripts' is ironic...the scholar erasmus who compiled the textus receptus that the KJV is based on was a committed roman catholic who once said he would accept a notorious heresy if rome declared that it was true...he also considered the protestant reformation to be a disaster...

Although Erasmus was a Augustinian priest, he certainly was not a "committed roman catholic." And he certainly was not "committed" to the Roman Catholic church. In fact, he was a strong critic of the Roman Catholic church and its papal monarchy. He also was a strong critic of the Pope.


Was Erasmus, editor of the Textus Receptus, a good Roman Catholic?

 

[KJV1611]

So, that being said, let me give you a couple of thoughts to dwell on.
1. Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people


Have fun with that.

Any translation or so called copy of the originals that have Passover instead of Easter is wrong. Answer these two questions and you will see that Easter is the correct translation.

When is Passover?
When is Unleavened Bread?

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Act 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

They took peter in the days of unleavened bread... Passover had already come and gone. They were waiting for Easter to pass just like the KJV says.

 

[KJV1611]

Any bible that has "a son of the gods" in Daniel 3:25 is a false bible... that eliminates most all bibles as being the true word of God.

25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

The same for Acts 12:4, any bible that has Passover instead of Easter is wrong.

4 After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

These new bibles are false period, the evidence is everywhere.

 

[Tintin]

Any bible that has "a son of the gods" in Daniel 3:25 is a false bible... that eliminates most all bibles as being the true word of God.

25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

The same for Acts 12:4, any bible that has Passover instead of Easter is wrong.

4 After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

These new bibles are false period, the evidence is everywhere.

Oh, really? Some context will help here. King Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king who believed in idol worship. This verse is from the perspective of a pagan king! He recognised there was a divine being in the furnace with them and attributed it what he knew from his culture (or convinced himself of such things). Did you really expect him to have a Jewish understanding of God? No. That would be silly.

"...a son of the gods" is a truer translation but it's not a doctrinal issue that affects one's salvation.

 

[dcontroversal]

here is another link...

Bible Phrases - a list of everyday phrases that come from the Bible.

It is the only bible authorized ever to be read in church
It is the only bible ever to be ordained by a king

You say the language is archaic, but when it was written English was in its purest form, we have destroyed the English language, You talk about Manuscripts and yet the ESV is apart of the Alexandrian text that westcott and hort tried to use, in the 1800s,

And i should believe most scholars? If i believed experts id be an atheist I believe Evolution is what most "experts" say is the cause of life.

Authorized by who? and Read in what church?

 

[majorjones]

I wouldn't give you a nickle for all the modern translations combined. There's a feminist's translation now where God's a woman, and a middle eastern translation designed to convert muslims where Jesus isn't the Son of God. Others are soft on homosexuals, and still others butcher or omit verses altogether...

KJV isn't perfect, but its better than any of the mess they publish today....

 

[KJV1611]

Oh, really? Some context will help here. King Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king who believed in idol worship. This verse is from the perspective of a pagan king! He recognised there was a divine being in the furnace with them and attributed it what he knew from his culture (or convinced himself of such things). Did you really expect him to have a Jewish understanding of God? No. That would be silly.

"...a son of the gods" is a truer translation but it's not a doctrinal issue that affects one's salvation.

That's your opinion, but Nebuchadnezzar knew who the most high God was, whether he followed him or not, it's obvious from verse 36 that he knew who Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's God was.

Dan 3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

 

[KJV1611]

I wouldn't give you a nickle for all the modern translations combined. There's a feminist's translation now where God's a woman, and a middle eastern translation designed to convert muslims where Jesus isn't the Son of God. Others are soft on homosexuals, and still others butcher or omit verses altogether...

KJV isn't perfect, but its better than any of the mess they publish today....

Where are the imperfections?

 

[Tintin]

I wouldn't give you a nickle for all the modern translations combined. There's a feminist's translation now where God's a woman, and a middle eastern translation designed to convert muslims where Jesus isn't the Son of God. Others are soft on homosexuals, and still others butcher or omit verses altogether...

KJV isn't perfect, but its better than any of the mess they publish today....

Your argument for the KJV is disingenuous. You can't just mention clearly ungodly versions and write off all modern Bibles because of that! Most are of God.

 

[Historicist]

Here is why i believe the KJV of the bible is GODs word,

No other bible has being more persecuted or questioned in history,
No other bible has anyone ever tried to destroyed.

And this is even before you even open the first page

Please enjoy and marvel
The Story of The King James Bible - YouTube

Well said, and there is no copyright on the KJV, no one is making money on it as they are on the others. Quote from, and copy the KJV all you want, no worry about infringment.

 

[38miles]

Well said, and there is no copyright on the KJV, no one is making money on it as they are on the others. Quote from, and copy the KJV all you want, no worry about infringment.

If only the recent retro trend had gone back 200 years instead of 20...