Where did King James only originate?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- 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.
No, it just means they would rather you read that one than a different bible that might have been catholic. At the time, there was quite a big difference between catholicism and the churches that wanted to break away from it.
The thing with the KJV was not only was it authorized like some of the others, it was the MOST popular translation by far.
The thing with the KJV was not only was it authorized like some of the others, it was the MOST popular translation by far.
Why wouldn't you say that, since you should know that the Gnostics were corrupting the Bible, and Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism? Why are Christians -- of all people -- afraid of the truth? Origen of Alexandria himself may have been responsible for some of the corruption.
"John Burgon, author of scores of scholarly books on the transmission and corruption of the original Greek manuscripts said:
I am of the opinion that such depravations of the text (as found in Aleph and B) were in the first instance intentional. Origen may be regarded as the prime offender. ..the author of all the mischief...(Clement used) ‘hopelessly’ corrupt' versions of the New Testament which there is in these last days an attempt to revive and palm off on an unlearned generation the old exploded errors. He went on to say: "We are assured without a particle of hesitation, that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts are of the most scandalously corrupt copies exant. They exhibit the most shamefully mutilated text which are anywhere to be met with, and have become the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversion of truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.( The Revision Revised, Page 336.)"
Even mild F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who actually wrote the textbook on Textual Criticism) -- made it perfectly clear that the worst corruptions of the Bible occurred in the early centuries. He also concurred that Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) were two of the MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts in existence. And those two are the foundation of all modern bible version New Testaments since 1881.
He said that though it may sound paradoxical, the oldest manuscripts are the worst. And many others agreed with him. But the hoax perpetrated by Westcott & Hort was that the oldest manuscripts were the best! Why? Because they hated the Textus Receptus.
"John Burgon, author of scores of scholarly books on the transmission and corruption of the original Greek manuscripts said:
I am of the opinion that such depravations of the text (as found in Aleph and B) were in the first instance intentional. Origen may be regarded as the prime offender. ..the author of all the mischief...(Clement used) ‘hopelessly’ corrupt' versions of the New Testament which there is in these last days an attempt to revive and palm off on an unlearned generation the old exploded errors. He went on to say: "We are assured without a particle of hesitation, that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts are of the most scandalously corrupt copies exant. They exhibit the most shamefully mutilated text which are anywhere to be met with, and have become the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversion of truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.( The Revision Revised, Page 336.)"
Even mild F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century (who actually wrote the textbook on Textual Criticism) -- made it perfectly clear that the worst corruptions of the Bible occurred in the early centuries. He also concurred that Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) were two of the MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts in existence. And those two are the foundation of all modern bible version New Testaments since 1881.
He said that though it may sound paradoxical, the oldest manuscripts are the worst. And many others agreed with him. But the hoax perpetrated by Westcott & Hort was that the oldest manuscripts were the best! Why? Because they hated the Textus Receptus.
-
1
- Show all
they apparently could not in good conscience print their work without that note, that 'them' is literally 'him' in Hebrew, i.e. in their best judgement, irrespective of what they chose to render as prose, referring to person(s) rather than book(s)
they seem to have felt their translation left open wrong interpretation and were compelled to give a bit of clarification lest such misunderstanding arise
they seem to have felt their translation left open wrong interpretation and were compelled to give a bit of clarification lest such misunderstanding arise
-
1
- Show all
