Everything's a conspiracy, either we are for God or we are against him... intentionally or not. So why do we see differences between the KJV and the newer translations MarcR. Is it because of the differences between the TR and Sinaticus-Vaticanus?
Are the Earliest Manuscripts the Best?
- Thread starter KJV1611
- 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.
Drop the tags please! The TR (Textus Receiptus, text of the King James translation) is call the majority text because 95% of extant ancient copies agree with it, Codex Sinaitus and and Codex Vaicanicus are call minority text because only 5% of the ancient manuscripts agree with them, guess which I am going with.
Codex Sinaiatus is also corrupt and was being use as fire starter. Sinaiatus isn't the older copy we have, but it is not fit for anything, it was translated by heretics.
Codex Sinaiatus is also corrupt and was being use as fire starter. Sinaiatus isn't the older copy we have, but it is not fit for anything, it was translated by heretics.
The King James Bible is the perfect, preserved, inerrant and infallible word.
It is the Absolute Standard. It is absolutely perfect.
Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version (KJV)[SUP]
[/SUP]The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God promised to preserve and Keep His words.
So while the message does count, so do the words. The words are what make up the message.
You're talking past me. The issue is not simply about whether God is capable and does preserve his word, again, because the same argument is turned around onto the early church in reverse if you take the usual KJVO position. The question is in what manner does God preserve his word, what is the quantum of that preservation, and how does that square with the manuscript tradition we have before us.
The problem with the video is takes the idea that there must be a word for word accurate single discrete version in existence somewhere at any given time, as the foundational principle without justification, and proceeds on that a priori basis, so that 95% of the content of the video is meaningless, because it depends on that first assumption.
It's all well and good to commend a video because it has a view you happen to agree with. But when the main reason you commend it is because of an assumption that is questionable and is not proven but take for granted, I'd want to push back a little bit on that, because that alone is not really worthy of commendation to others at all. I too can make questionable propositions with little actual justification behind them.
It's a shame, because Mike obviously puts effort into his citations and slides. But they only have significance in his mind because of his presupposition. The significance of the Byzantine MSS and the KJV adding the Christ after 'Jesus' in certain areas where other MSS don't have that there depends entirely on presuppositions - firstly, that the Byzantine text is always original, and secondly, that a single missing or altered word inevitably changes the actually meaning of the text. If that were true, we should all be reading the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.
I hate it when people throw this passage around but don't respond when people challenge them on it. I replied to your use of it here in another thread, but I'll bring this up again:
I'll just add as a side note that even we ignore the misuse of Scripture for rhetorical gain from Psalm 12, I'm still not sure how you get from the concept of purity in Psalm 12 to the kind of word for word accuracy apparently required, and found only in the KJV. If we took Psalm 12 as you suggest, surely the original Greek and Hebrew is by definition the real pure word of God (because certainly if Psalm 12 actually were referring to the Scriptures, it would be referring to them in Hebrew), and any translation is inherently a compromise of that purity.
Steel might be better than iron, but it's not pure iron. If pure iron is what you want, you can't transform it to make it easier to use, you have to stick with the iron. In the same way, if you're going to argue for purity of God's word in the context of word for word, signifier by signifier precision, there's no point talking about translation.
While I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word (with it being my final word of authority), I also believe it is important that we look at other translations, though, too. Most people have a hard time understanding Early Modern English (1600's English) because it is not as precise in it's explanation when I am trying to communicate to people in Late Modern English (i.e. Modern English). For example: Revelation 20:10 says,
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
I believe it is more accurate that this passage is understood according to our Late Modern English as saying... "and shall be tormented day and night for the purpose of the ages of ages." For the Greek word "anon" (αἰών) is defined as a period of time or an age. In other words, today we do not understand the word "ever" as talking about an "age." But that is what it is saying.
Greek Lexicon :: G165 (KJV)
Colossians 2:17 in the King James says,
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Yet, God's Word Translation clears up the 1600's English and helps put it into Modern English for me so I can understand it better when it says,
"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ."
(Colossians 2:17 GWT).
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
I believe it is more accurate that this passage is understood according to our Late Modern English as saying... "and shall be tormented day and night for the purpose of the ages of ages." For the Greek word "anon" (αἰών) is defined as a period of time or an age. In other words, today we do not understand the word "ever" as talking about an "age." But that is what it is saying.
Greek Lexicon :: G165 (KJV)
Colossians 2:17 in the King James says,
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Yet, God's Word Translation clears up the 1600's English and helps put it into Modern English for me so I can understand it better when it says,
"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ."
(Colossians 2:17 GWT).
Last edited:
A side issue, but
The phrase is idiomatic, and overlooks the way those particular prepositions tend to work in Koine Greek, as opposed to the more Classical Greek usage. I'm not sure where you get the 'purposes of the' section from either, because the Greek certainly doesn't offer that as an option.
This isn't an issue of the KJV translation not retaining it's meaning in contemporary English. The KJV translators meant forever and ever more or less as we mean it, and they got it right the first time (browny points for the KJV translators at this point!). Virtually every mainstream translation (NASB, NKJV, NIV, NET, ESV) reads exactly the same at this point, because that's what the Greek means. Actually not sure what translations you consulted to get the meaning your offered - wasn't in my usual group of translations. The intent of the Greek is to indicate the longest possible length of time - i.e, forever. The KJV is actually pretty clear in this verse, even in our English.
Not entirely sure what this clarifies, personally. Maybe it's a subjective thing. I think they're both as opaque as each other, when the meaning is essentially that the things previously discussed are a shadow, but the 'real deal' or 'substance' of those things is Christ, or is His. In other words, the argument Paul is making is that the things we should care about are ultimately not outward showings of religiosity like festivals, or eating or drinking the right things, or being outwardly pious, but the genuine and deep holiness and righteousness which cannnot be found in those things, but in Christ.
The phrase is idiomatic, and overlooks the way those particular prepositions tend to work in Koine Greek, as opposed to the more Classical Greek usage. I'm not sure where you get the 'purposes of the' section from either, because the Greek certainly doesn't offer that as an option.
This isn't an issue of the KJV translation not retaining it's meaning in contemporary English. The KJV translators meant forever and ever more or less as we mean it, and they got it right the first time (browny points for the KJV translators at this point!). Virtually every mainstream translation (NASB, NKJV, NIV, NET, ESV) reads exactly the same at this point, because that's what the Greek means. Actually not sure what translations you consulted to get the meaning your offered - wasn't in my usual group of translations. The intent of the Greek is to indicate the longest possible length of time - i.e, forever. The KJV is actually pretty clear in this verse, even in our English.
Not entirely sure what this clarifies, personally. Maybe it's a subjective thing. I think they're both as opaque as each other, when the meaning is essentially that the things previously discussed are a shadow, but the 'real deal' or 'substance' of those things is Christ, or is His. In other words, the argument Paul is making is that the things we should care about are ultimately not outward showings of religiosity like festivals, or eating or drinking the right things, or being outwardly pious, but the genuine and deep holiness and righteousness which cannnot be found in those things, but in Christ.
To suggest that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the only 'oldest manuscripts' is totally out of date. And we really do not know their source. It is all guesswork. All we know is that somehow they were preserved, their approximate date, and where they were found. When new discoveries are made they always confirm that the Byzantine text is a combined text from older texts.
nor are all Byzantine texts the same. Earlier Byzantine texts are considerably different from later texts, indeed 1 john 5.7 is found in only one greek text up to 16th century and was probably deliberately incorporated into it from latin texts which do contain it.
I was brought up on kjv and respect and admire its beauty. but to suggest that it is perfect belies belief.
nor are all Byzantine texts the same. Earlier Byzantine texts are considerably different from later texts, indeed 1 john 5.7 is found in only one greek text up to 16th century and was probably deliberately incorporated into it from latin texts which do contain it.
I was brought up on kjv and respect and admire its beauty. but to suggest that it is perfect belies belief.
It has been preserved in dozens if not hundreds of languages over 2000 years. The printing press saw to it that a boom in Bible production and translations took off around the whole of Europe. Prior to that there were still copies of Bibles in numerous languages. HOwever as these are not in 17th Century English I guess they are from Satan and perverted.
Very little survives from a few hundred years ago, let alone anything published in antiquity, so the fact we have a huge number of original Bibles still in existence shows just how it has been preserved. AS I keep saying the King James is a good translation, but its just part of the continuation of the preservation, as English language evolves 17th century English will become even more archaic and outdated.
Actually you don't believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word, you only say that you do. If you truly believed it, you wouldn't be trying to change it.
G165 like most words has multiple meanings. It can mean an age, the world, a period, forever, eternal... Which definition did God intend in Revelation 20:10? If you believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God, then you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it means FOREVER. If you believe the inerrant word of God doesn't exist then you have know idea what God intended in Revelation 20:10 and have no way of ever knowing.
G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
Amongst the manuscript tradition, discernible by comparison, secondarily informed by the writings of the Fathers and other writers throughout the ages, and in any translation that appropriately renders the discerned authoritative text in alternate languages.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
because there is no such thing, and you know it. a bible outdated, with words which do not even mean today what they meant back then is not innerant. period.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
A
atwhatcost
Guest
Actually, the latest translations with the right Biblical scholars are the best. Jerome did a marvelous job translating Ancinet Hebrew and Ancient Greek to the language of the people -- Latin. Amazing when you realize he not only had no internet and sharing with other scholars, he didn't know anyone else to turn to. BUT he still got some words wrong. One was the word for repent. He translated it to penance. (Thus the problem of the RCC constantly insisting on penance vs. repent. They won't update.) Of course over the years, more scholars came along and they found other instances of words in languages they had to learn that helped show what the word meant in context, so it's gotten better.
We're still not there though. That word in Genesis 3 isn't "serpent." Well, it might not be serpent. And Nephilim has only been seen four times in all ancient writings -- twice in the Bible and twice outside of it. From context it seems to mean either giant or feller. BUT, what's a feller? So, we kind of use giant until we can find what it really means by continuing to look for ancient scrolls and messages so we can translate them.
Give up too soon or even assume what we know is all there is to know, and no! Just no! We will never get a thorough understanding of what it really says.
Also helpful to know the purpose of the new translation/version. King James hired his 70 to make the Bible say Rex Lex, not Lex Rex. (The king is law vs. the law is king.) They disobeyed, so that was a pretty accurate version way back then. Loses something through the years, but that's because we've learned more since, and, oh yeah! It just ain't right to say God is awful like it used to be. Used to be awful, meant full of awe. (Which is why KJV still calls God awful.) But, now we need to clarify that into even more modern English because it's not cool to call God that anymore.
If you're into studying how the Bible came to be, I recommend "The Books and the Parchments" by F.F. Bruce. I hope you're into linguistics and semantics, because a lot of it is dry, if you aren't.
We're still not there though. That word in Genesis 3 isn't "serpent." Well, it might not be serpent. And Nephilim has only been seen four times in all ancient writings -- twice in the Bible and twice outside of it. From context it seems to mean either giant or feller. BUT, what's a feller? So, we kind of use giant until we can find what it really means by continuing to look for ancient scrolls and messages so we can translate them.
Give up too soon or even assume what we know is all there is to know, and no! Just no! We will never get a thorough understanding of what it really says.
Also helpful to know the purpose of the new translation/version. King James hired his 70 to make the Bible say Rex Lex, not Lex Rex. (The king is law vs. the law is king.) They disobeyed, so that was a pretty accurate version way back then. Loses something through the years, but that's because we've learned more since, and, oh yeah! It just ain't right to say God is awful like it used to be. Used to be awful, meant full of awe. (Which is why KJV still calls God awful.) But, now we need to clarify that into even more modern English because it's not cool to call God that anymore.
If you're into studying how the Bible came to be, I recommend "The Books and the Parchments" by F.F. Bruce. I hope you're into linguistics and semantics, because a lot of it is dry, if you aren't.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
Jerome lived from 347-420 AD. He used the earliest manuscripts. Just in case you were wondering.
Also, Latin was not the "language of the people." It was the language of the church, and the government. The people's language was Greek, even after the use of Koine Greek -- the language in which the New Testament was written -- passed from existence.
Question. How do you really know? Is it the repeat use of that word? It's context? Or is it what you have learned in the Greek in some book or school or teacher?
Not sure why you are against me on this. I am actually agreeing for once that the KJV is not always easy to understand (Which is what Modern Translation Proponents like to push). For me, the meaning is confusing in the KJV and more clear in the GWT. In fact, the GWT helped me to undertand that verse better.
I love it when people tell me what I believe when I don't believe such a thing. Do people tell you that, too? So you should know how it feels. Therefore, I would ask you to refrain in making such a statement that is simply not true.
Anyways, I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God that was written in Early Modern English (1600's English) and it was not written in Late Modern English (i.e. Today's English). Seeing words could have had a wide variety of meaning back then, we can't make the assumption that words today are the same words used back then.
I mean, have you ever did a study on the word "forever" in the Bible before?
The word "forever" (and it's related words) does not always mean forever in the Bible. “Forever” can have a temporal sense. For what do you make of the following verses below that say that "forever" (or it's related words) is not forever?
• In Gen.13:15 the land of Canaan is given to Israel “forever”.
• The Law is to be a statute “forever” (Ex.12:24; 27:21; 28:43).
• Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezek.16:53-55).
• Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer.30:12) until -- the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer.30:17).
• The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic.1:9) until -- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez.16:53).
• Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph.2:9, Jer.25:27 until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer.49:6).
• An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever" until -- the tenth generation (Deut.23:3):
• Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting" until -- they "were shattered" Hab.3 3:6).
• The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex.40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Heb.7:14-18).
• Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), until -- the Temple was destroyed.
• The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until -- Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).
• The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Lev.24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Cor. 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).
• The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" until -- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins.
Hell. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).
• God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jer.25:27) until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ez.29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jer.49:39).
• "Moab is destroyed" (Jer.48:4, 42) until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jer.48:47).
• Israel's judgment lasts "forever" until -- the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa.32:13-15).
• The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), until -- his death.
• “Eternal” (Greek aionia, αιονια) is sometimes used of a limited (not endless) period of time. But the most common use is illustrated in II Cor.4:18 where it is contrasted with “temporal” and in Philemon 15 where it is contrasted with “for a while.”
Source Used:
http://www.apttoteach.org/Theology/E...f/911_Hell.pdf