The King James Bible

[Sagart]

Nestle, Nestle-Aland, and the United Bible Societies critical texts are merely WARMED OVER Westcott & Hort (with a sprinkling of Tischendorf). Let me show you from a significant portion of Scripture -- the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2-4).

King James Bible
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

New International Version
He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

RECEIVED TEXT

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
​

εἷπε δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε, Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
​

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοις, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς γὴς

CRITICAL TEXTS ("Our" and "which art in heaven" and "thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" omitted)
Westcott and Hort 1881
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

​

Westcott and Hort / [Nestle Aland 27 variants]
​

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω / ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

United Bible Societies (UBS)
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε,Πάτερ, ἀγιασθήτω τὸ ὀνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

Do you see in variations in the critical texts? If not, then let's agree that all critical texts go back to Westcott and Hort, and there is no need to claim that W&H is dead, and that you have something else which is "new and improved".

Luke 11:2 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

Does this look familiar? It is Luke 11:2 from the Fifth Edition (1878) of Novum Testamentum Graece by Constantinus De Tischendorf. It predates Westcott and Hort’s text, and therefore it cannot be attributed to Westcott and Hort but to their predecessor. Therefore, your statement that “all critical texts go back to Westcott and Hort” is absolutely false! (I know that the text is genuine because I have the original hardcopy right here on my desk!)

 

[Sagart]

With all due respect to Adam Clarke, what he should have done is pointed out that the variations in the Lord's Prayer are to be found only in a handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D -- and not in all the manuscripts.

The textual variants in the Greek text of Luke 11:2 are exceedingly numerous. For a summary of the most important variants, see the textual apparatus in NA28.

If you wish to get the facts kindly read and study The Revision Revised by Burgon (as well as his other books) since he personally collated the manuscripts first hand and knew what he was talking about.

Less than one-half of one percent of the peers of Dean Burgon have ever accepted the textual criticism of Dean Burgon as being valid. Indeed, of the 370 volumes that I have here in my study of analysis of the Greek New Testament written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought, not even one of them accepts the textual criticism of Dean Burgon as being valid.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

 

[Dino246]

The fact that you have to slam Scrivener's Textus Receptus shows that you have no leg to stand on.

I don't see how the presentation of simple facts amounts to a slam. Scrivener's is essentially a translation of the KJV into Greek, and trying to use it to justify the content of the Greek is circular reasoning. No slam, just sound logic.

... The King James translators had access to all the printed Greek texts starting with Erasmus and going to the Elzeviers.

The KJV was translated between 1604 and 1611. The Elzevirs produced their printed edition in 1624. Perhaps you made a mistake here.

What you should have done in all fairness -- if you know anything about Scrivener -- is reminded your readers that Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener was the leading textual scholar of the 19th century...

This was truly a massive hoax perpetrated on the Christian world and you should have the honesty to admit this.

I am not at all obligated by "fairness" to share information that is extraneous to my point.

I am also not obligated to "admit" to assertions that don't square with the understanding I have on the subject.

 

[Locutus]

What makes me "chuckle" over the protestation of the King Jiblets is that the NIV and NASB both draw the readers attention to the changes made in the foot notes:

Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, “When you pray, say: “ ‘Father,[fn] hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.[fn]

Some manuscripts May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Luke 11:2 (NASB) And He said to them, “When you pray, say:‘[fn]Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

Later mss add phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to make the two passages closely similar.

So much for honesty and selective quoting from the King Jibblers..

 

[SovereignGrace]

What makes me "chuckle" over the protestation of the King Jiblets is that the NIV and NASB both draw the readers attention to the changes made in the foot notes:

Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, “When you pray, say: “ ‘Father,[fn] hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.[fn]

Some manuscripts May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Luke 11:2 (NASB) And He said to them, “When you pray, say:‘[fn]Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

Later mss add phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to make the two passages closely similar.

So much for honesty and selective quoting from the King Jibblers..

You meant jibblets...

Oh, the original 1611 had footnotes, too. So even they knew other words(wordings) were plausible as well.

 

[Locutus]

Just playing around SG with King James Bible and giblets - King Jiblets

 

[dailybread]

Nope! Yet the KJV will draw someone closer to God, in Christ, then a translation someone could understand better?

This ^ I had been reading the NKJV and one day while walking around the Bible section in Ollie's, something deep inside of me kept nagging me to open up the KJV. After a few more minutes of walking around, I did and began reading it. I felt everything just "click" and I just felt so much happier and at peace. I bought it and haven't picked up another translation since.

 

[Nehemiah6]

This ^ I had been reading the NKJV and one day while walking around the Bible section in Ollie's, something deep inside of me kept nagging me to open up the KJV. After a few more minutes of walking around, I did and began reading it. I felt everything just "click" and I just felt so much happier and at peace. I bought it and haven't picked up another translation since.

Good for you. Quite evidently the Lord was leading and guiding you in this matter, so stick to the Authorized Version and don't let anyone tell you that modern Bible versions are superior.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Stick with whatever version you learn from the best. If its the KJV, use it. If its a NIV, ESV, NASB, YLT, NKJV, NLT, (H)CSB, use that.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Stick with whatever version you learn from the best. If its the KJV, use it. If its a NIV, ESV, NASB, YLT, NKJV, NLT, (H)CSB, use that.

That's the mantra you will hear from most evangelical Christians because they have been thoroughly deceived about modern Bible versions. The ones who have searched out the matter (as God expects Christians to do) will understand that a major HOAX was perpetrated on the Christian world to drive Christians away from the leading English translation which has stood for over 300 years -- the King James Bible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And how can you confidently avow the KJV superior? What proof do you have?

The Bishop's, Geneva, Tyndale, and Wycliffe are older than the KJV. I don't think longevity, by itself, is proof of its superiority, imo.

 

[Blain]

That's the mantra you will hear from most evangelical Christians because they have been thoroughly deceived about modern Bible versions. The ones who have searched out the matter (as God expects Christians to do) will understand that a major HOAX was perpetrated on the Christian world to drive Christians away from the leading English translation which has stood for over 300 years -- the King James Bible.

I would be careful how you speak of the word of God. It is not simply ink and paper it is sacred and holy and is the very heart of God himself, it is alive and is filled with his power and his spirit and you speaking ill of his word just because it is not the version of the one you prefer is the same thing as speaking ill of him. It is not for you a mere man to decide God's word because it is not your word it is his. Have you ever had to use scriptures in spiritual warfare? Or have you ever had to quote a verse to give you peace in a time of great distress? I have, I spoke of this one So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
This verse alone has saved me from great distress more times than I can count and guess what? I read it from an niv bible and the power of the scriptures were more than evident.

You can speak of ill of the versions of his word but until you have seen the power and seen his spirit work in them then all your doing is accusing God's word of being bologna. As a personal witness to the power a single verse can have not just in spiritual warfare but also in the hearts of those who we speak the scriptures to I can attest that his word regardless if we believe it to be his word or not is very much alive and very sacred it is not a toy and it is not something we can simply pick and choose.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You can speak of ill of the versions of his word but until you have seen the power and seen his spirit work in them then all your doing is accusing God's word of being bologna.

It's interesting that you have nothing to say about the concerted attacks on the King James Bible ever since its inception. Also you cannot rightly call the modern versions "the Word of God", but you can certainly call them "the MUTILATED Word of God".

 

[Blain]

It's interesting that you have nothing to say about the concerted attacks on the King James Bible ever since its inception. Also you cannot rightly call the modern versions "the Word of God", but you can certainly call them "the MUTILATED Word of God".

If anyone wants to attack the king james bible then are no better than those who attack every other bible. I myself very much enjoy the kjv and the word of God is not to be slandered period. Also if you want to call them the mutilated word of God then we might as well do the same with kj. The main defence why the kjv is the only true word of God is because it is the closest to the original text yes? However it is also not the original text so it if by that logic we define the word God to be the true word of God then we all are in the same boat of reading the mutilated word of God.

Even if the kjv is close to the original text that doesn't make it the one and true word of God

 

[Nehemiah6]

And how can you confidently avow the KJV superior? What proof do you have?

Here's the proof from The Translators to the Reader:

...[We made] out of many good ones [translations], one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise...

And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.

In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New...

If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did...neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome...neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen...

None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business of moment [great significance] a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness.

Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

 

[Blain]

Actually here is a good example for my case. The kjv vs. the niv. A couple nights ago I was bored and decided to look up my name in the bible, now if you didn't know the name Blain has many meanings but one of them is an infected wound or inflation now look at this

Exodus 9:9 (KJV)

And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt.


Exodus 9:10 (KJV)

And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.

Where as say the niv version
Exodus 9:9 (NIV)

It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on people and animals throughout the land.”


Exodus 9:10 (NIV)

So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on people and animals.

Now the kjv refers to my name as it is spelled but the niv refers to my name as the definition of my name but it's saying the same thing. also notice the animals and beast in both versions different words same meaning. Even if a word is translated to be easier to understand that doesn't change the validation of the word

 

[tanakh]

SCREAM not another KJV thread. This time its from 'James' Is the real celebrated King Jimmy sending posts about it now?

 

[Blain]

SCREAM not another KJV thread. This time its from 'James' Is the real celebrated King Jimmy sending posts about it now?

No worries I have an anti kjv thread bunker for just such an occasion but theres only one bed so.... enjoy the floor

 

[fredoheaven]

And here we have it folks...Ruckmanism 101. IIRC, Peter Ruckman foolishly claimed the KJV corrected the originals, and ole John146 has swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel all the way up to Ruckman's shoulder. I just have two questions for these KJVO'ers...what color is the sky in your world, and how flat is the earth?

Any real citations that PR claimed KJV corrected the originals? and what do you mean originals? Original writings, original language? Original papers?

Thanks