The KJV Only & The Textus Receptus Only - a continuous thread
- Thread starter trofimus
- 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.
So the question remains: How do we know which text family is the most reliable?
Both have their arguments surely.
However the case may be, I will keep reading this Bible in finnish: Finnish Pyhä Raamattu (1933/1938) (FinPR) - Bibles - Bible-Discovery Software
I would really appreciate if someone could let me know what manuscripts were used to translate this particular Bible. I have tried to google in finnish but even the finnish wikipedia page is silent on it. Strange.
Both have their arguments surely.
However the case may be, I will keep reading this Bible in finnish: Finnish Pyhä Raamattu (1933/1938) (FinPR) - Bibles - Bible-Discovery Software
I would really appreciate if someone could let me know what manuscripts were used to translate this particular Bible. I have tried to google in finnish but even the finnish wikipedia page is silent on it. Strange.
See my earlier post with a quotation from Dean Burgon. F H A Scrivener, probably the leading textual scholar of his time, agreed fully with Burgon. And since you brought up Finnish, I believe the Finnish Bible (1776) also includes 1 John 5:7. Correct me if I am wrong.
7 Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovat:
8 Ja kolme ovat, jotka todistavat maan päällä: Henki ja vesi ja veri, ja ne kolme yhdessä ovat.
Translation
7 for each of the three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one And three are: 8, which bear witness on Earth: the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three together are.
The modern Finnish follows the modern Bibles.
7 Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovat:
8 Ja kolme ovat, jotka todistavat maan päällä: Henki ja vesi ja veri, ja ne kolme yhdessä ovat.
Translation
7 for each of the three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one And three are: 8, which bear witness on Earth: the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three together are.
The modern Finnish follows the modern Bibles.
Last edited:
Yes the 1776 is based on Textus Receptus. The reason why only 2 small revival movements in Finland use it, is because unlike the KJV which people claim is archaic, this one REALLY is archaic, we are talking colossal differences. Even the word saved is translated as "glad" or "made glad" often times.
I had an idea the 33/38 translation was from the other manuscripts due to them not having 1 john 5:7 or Acts 8:37 but I would like to know which specific manuscripts, since I have found out there are PLENTY.
I had an idea the 33/38 translation was from the other manuscripts due to them not having 1 john 5:7 or Acts 8:37 but I would like to know which specific manuscripts, since I have found out there are PLENTY.
How do you know that?
WOW, Angela - I can't believe that you would make such a claim concerning documents we don't actually have in our possession today, nor that anyone in this modern day has ever actually seen with their own eyes...
For someone who is always very vocal about other people having absolute "officially sanctioned" documented proof of their statements, you have really stepped way-out-of-bounds on this one!
How can you possibly make any claims with certainty concerning the autographs ?!?!
WOW.
Just --- WOW.
SMH
Wow, Gary! If you stopped worrying about nonsense like flat earth, and looked into textual criticism, lower, of course, you would understand that over 90% of all manuscripts totally agree. So, eliminate minor variations, such as exOmen, versus exomen, (long and short O, I don't have Greek letters on my IPad) that number shoots up considerably, maybe as high as 98%.
So why do you think there is such agreement in texts from all over and various ages? Because they are based on the original manuscripts. Truly, the amount and type of corruption is easily traced to mostly scribal errors of various types, which never affect doctrine. So, when I say "original autographs" I'm talking about the agreement we have between manuscripts, which reflect the Trinity in so many passages. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all unique persons, one in unity (echad as per the Shema in Deut. 6) or in John 17, and divine.
I don't need to have "perfect" translation, because I can trust that my perfect God has preserved his Word, using imperfect men to do that! Because of extensive and careful scholarship by people with more understanding of translational issues and doctrine than I will ever have, I can say with certainty that the Bible is true, and speaks to us today in a variety of translations! And, because I have studied the original languages, I think it is important to have absolute truth regarding which verses were not inspired by God, but added later. Regardless of how it confirms the truth, 1 John 5:7 simply was not there in the earliest manuscripts.
G
Wow, Gary! If you stopped worrying about nonsense like flat earth, { totally unnecessary personal attack } and looked into textual criticism, lower, of course, you would understand that over 90% of all manuscripts totally agree. { Yes, they do. And, they are also in agreement with the Textus Receptus. } So, eliminate minor variations, such as exOmen, versus exomen, (long and short O, I don't have Greek letters on my IPad) that number shoots up considerably, maybe as high as 98%.
So why do you think there is such agreement in texts from all over and various ages? Because they are based on the original manuscripts. Truly, the amount and type of corruption is easily traced to mostly scribal errors of various types, which never affect doctrine. So, when I say "original autographs" { A phrase that should NEVER EVER EVER be used to refer to anything other than original autographs. PERIOD. Don't you think there is enough communication error as there is?????????? You should NEVER use the word 'autograph' to refer to anything other than an actual autograph. Simple. See how well that works to prevent any misunderstanding? Stop making excuses. You should know better! You are doing damage to the reputation you are trying to uphold -- as someone who knows how to exposit and discourse with expert utilization of the proper terminology. With regard to biblical manuscripts, the word 'autograph' has a very explicit definition.You know this! It is exactly and precisely how we differentiate ( in discourse ) between the actual originals and copies of the originals. We can say 'manuscripts' - and, it might mean 'autograph' or 'copy'. But, when we say 'autograph', we know exactly what it means. You know this! So, why are you trying to cover up your mistakes? Why don't you simply OWN it, admit it, and move on...? Put the shovel down, Angela - it is getting deeper and deeper... } I'm talking about the agreement we have between manuscripts, which reflect the Trinity in so many passages. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all unique persons, one in unity (echad as per the Shema in Deut. 6) or in John 17, and divine.
I don't need to have "perfect" translation, because I can trust that my perfect God has preserved his Word, { Yes, He has - in the form of the Textus Receptus and the KJV. ( Absolutely-most-certainly not in Wescott & Hort and the modern versions. ) I am not ignoring the O.T. here, as it is virtually 100% in agreement "across the board"... } using imperfect men to do that! { Correct! } Because of extensive and careful scholarship by people with more understanding of translational issues and doctrine than I will ever have, { like, the people who translated the KJV - whose expertise WITHOUT DOUBT is far better than ANYONE today! ( And, only those whose PRIDE is "greater" than their powers of reasoning will deny that this statement is in the highest probabability of the reality of truth. ) } I can say with certainty that the Bible is true, and speaks to us today in a variety of translations! And, because I have studied the original languages, I think it is important to have absolute truth regarding which verses were not inspired by God, but added later. Regardless of how it confirms the truth, 1 John 5:7 simply was not there in the earliest manuscripts.
} and looked into textual criticism, lower, of course, you would understand that over 90% of all manuscripts totally agree. { Yes, they do. And, they are also in agreement with the Textus Receptus. } So, eliminate minor variations, such as exOmen, versus exomen, (long and short O, I don't have Greek letters on my IPad) that number shoots up considerably, maybe as high as 98%.So why do you think there is such agreement in texts from all over and various ages? Because they are based on the original manuscripts. Truly, the amount and type of corruption is easily traced to mostly scribal errors of various types, which never affect doctrine. So, when I say "original autographs" { A phrase that should NEVER EVER EVER be used to refer to anything other than original autographs. PERIOD. Don't you think there is enough communication error as there is?????????? You should NEVER use the word 'autograph' to refer to anything other than an actual autograph. Simple. See how well that works to prevent any misunderstanding? Stop making excuses. You should know better! You are doing damage to the reputation you are trying to uphold -- as someone who knows how to exposit and discourse with expert utilization of the proper terminology. With regard to biblical manuscripts, the word 'autograph' has a very explicit definition.You know this! It is exactly and precisely how we differentiate ( in discourse ) between the actual originals and copies of the originals. We can say 'manuscripts' - and, it might mean 'autograph' or 'copy'. But, when we say 'autograph', we know exactly what it means. You know this! So, why are you trying to cover up your mistakes? Why don't you simply OWN it, admit it, and move on...? Put the shovel down, Angela - it is getting deeper and deeper... } I'm talking about the agreement we have between manuscripts, which reflect the Trinity in so many passages. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all unique persons, one in unity (echad as per the Shema in Deut. 6) or in John 17, and divine.
I don't need to have "perfect" translation, because I can trust that my perfect God has preserved his Word, { Yes, He has - in the form of the Textus Receptus and the KJV. ( Absolutely-most-certainly not in Wescott & Hort and the modern versions. ) I am not ignoring the O.T. here, as it is virtually 100% in agreement "across the board"... } using imperfect men to do that! { Correct! } Because of extensive and careful scholarship by people with more understanding of translational issues and doctrine than I will ever have, { like, the people who translated the KJV - whose expertise WITHOUT DOUBT is far better than ANYONE today! ( And, only those whose PRIDE is "greater" than their powers of reasoning will deny that this statement is in the highest probabability of the reality of truth. ) } I can say with certainty that the Bible is true, and speaks to us today in a variety of translations! And, because I have studied the original languages, I think it is important to have absolute truth regarding which verses were not inspired by God, but added later. Regardless of how it confirms the truth, 1 John 5:7 simply was not there in the earliest manuscripts.
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TOTALS[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]# of MSS
WH/TR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]% of MSS
WH/TR[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Papyrus Fragments[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]81(88)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13/75[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]15%/85%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Unicals[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]267[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9/258[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3%/97%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cursives[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2764[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23/2741[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1%/99%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lectionaries[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2143[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0/2143[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0%/100%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]__________[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]__________[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]__________[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOTALS:[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5255[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]45/5210[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1%99%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The book is from the Seventh Printing (hardback) in December, 1999. I am aware that there are later manuscript discovery dates now in consideration since this book was printed. Nonetheless, the numbers tell the story - especially the 'Lectionaries' numbers, which represent "dedicated copies" for the special and particular purpose of scripture reading in the churches.
Notice that there are NO manuscripts in this data matching W&H that were used for the specific purpose of scripture reading in the churches; rather, ALL of them match the TR. This is very telling, indeed!
Notice that the clear majority - "by a long shot" - match the TR.
~
Post #137 was intended only to make a point -- not to discredit any particular specific conclusion that you may have made.
I have no problem with people reasoning such things. I only have a problem with people who do it while suggesting that others cannot - because they do not have the 'credentials' to "enable" them to do so.
( This is one of the most damaging lies of Satan that has so overwhelmingly influenced so many areas of modern society -- and, from which, has come so many forms of abuse of people in modern society. The 'elite' exist today [ directly ] because of it! ) I also have a problem with people who tell others that they must very specifically follow [ certain ] "accepted" guidelines ( that are 'credential'-based definitions / methods / etc. ) - while they themselves do not.
Opinions don't hold much weight in this discussion. Try some supporting evidence.
Your latter statement here is called "poisoning the well" and is both inappropriate and logically unsound. It is the same tactic used by evolutionists who claim things like, "Anyone who doesn't accept these 'facts' doesn't know anything about science."
The assertion that the KJV translators were "far better" in terms of translational issues and doctrine is laughably unsupportable. Their knowledge was limited; try looking up "the Granville Sharp construction". Again, don't waste time asserting your opinions in a discussion of facts.
Unfortunately, your comments do very little to explain the data you quoted. "Matching" is a somewhat vague term, so perhaps you could quote Dr. Waite's explanation as to what he means by it.
Your latter statement here is called "poisoning the well" and is both inappropriate and logically unsound. It is the same tactic used by evolutionists who claim things like, "Anyone who doesn't accept these 'facts' doesn't know anything about science."
The assertion that the KJV translators were "far better" in terms of translational issues and doctrine is laughably unsupportable. Their knowledge was limited; try looking up "the Granville Sharp construction". Again, don't waste time asserting your opinions in a discussion of facts.
Unfortunately, your comments do very little to explain the data you quoted. "Matching" is a somewhat vague term, so perhaps you could quote Dr. Waite's explanation as to what he means by it.
KJV "Rev. 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, ---etc."
NIV "Rev. 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, ---etc."
The term fearful which can mean either those who cause fear or those who are afraid in the KJV depending on context became cowardly in the NIV which means cowardly.
KJV "Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD ---"
NIV "Deut. 28:58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name - The Lord your God ---"
The term fearful here in the KJV is unambiguous. We all get it, "that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" (all capitalized in the KJV for good reason). In the NIV, the term cowardly from Rev. 21:8 inexplicably becomes awesome here. Could it be they were afraid to call God cowardly.
NIV "Rev. 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, ---etc."
The term fearful which can mean either those who cause fear or those who are afraid in the KJV depending on context became cowardly in the NIV which means cowardly.
KJV "Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD ---"
NIV "Deut. 28:58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name - The Lord your God ---"
The term fearful here in the KJV is unambiguous. We all get it, "that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" (all capitalized in the KJV for good reason). In the NIV, the term cowardly from Rev. 21:8 inexplicably becomes awesome here. Could it be they were afraid to call God cowardly.
Last edited:
Yes, this is strange. Almost every Bible I know of says in its introduction/preface what sources they used, what method of translation etc. So it strange that Finnish Bibles do not give this info.
So, maybe the last try would be to write to translation publishing, to Finnish Bible Society or some similar involved organization and ask them, whether they have this information.
Or, you can search for key differences between Greek texts (there are such works on internet) and compare it with your Bible and so "reverse engineer" what were the sources....
So, maybe the last try would be to write to translation publishing, to Finnish Bible Society or some similar involved organization and ask them, whether they have this information.
Or, you can search for key differences between Greek texts (there are such works on internet) and compare it with your Bible and so "reverse engineer" what were the sources....
Last edited: