The King James Only Debate

[trofimus]

Why do you think the modern versions are based off of more reliable manuscripts? How does one know that one manuscript is more accurate than another?

Also what passages in the modern translations have given better information than the KJV? The reason I ask is because I see the opposite is true, the newer translations are less revealing than the KJV. The divinity of Jesus for example.

This can be interesting for you:

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

Mainly the chapter "The King James Version is perfect."

To your question - KJV translator had several dozens of late manuscripts.

Now we have 6000 manuscripts, both late and very ancient ones from various areas of the world.

So we have much broader and better base for the original text today.

 

[KJV1611]

Its very simple and I think you know the answer - because it is so in Greek.

Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

1. because there is no word "God" in the text.
2. because that is what the Greek says - flesh, meat
3. I am not native English speaker, so I will pass this one

I don't know anything about Greek so I have to trust you on that. Which Greek manuscript did you get that from, the pure line or the corrupted line?

 

[trofimus]

I don't know anything about Greek so I have to trust you on that. Which Greek manuscript did you get that from, the pure line or the corrupted line?

Every manuscript is "corrupted" because every manuscript has some error in it. Mostly marginal, but still error.

The more manuscripts we have the higher probability is that we know the original reading. Because we have more data for comparison.

To your question - you asked about why NASB has this or that...because it is in the Greek text they used. I suppose they used NA27 edition (or similar), thats why I pasted the text from it.

 

[KJV1611]

This can be interesting for you:

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

Mainly the chapter "The King James Version is perfect."

To your question - KJV translator had several dozens of late manuscripts.

Now we have 6000 manuscripts, both late and very ancient ones from various areas of the world.

So we have much broader and better base for the original text today.

I read the link. Where is the proof that one manuscript is more accurate than another? Older does not mean better, there were corrupt versions of the gospels at the same time the gospels were written.

 

[KJV1611]

Every manuscript is "corrupted" because every manuscript has some error in it. Mostly marginal, but still error.

The more manuscripts we have the higher probability is that we know the original reading. Because we have more data for comparison.

To your question - you asked about why NASB has this or that...because it is in the Greek text they used. I suppose they used NA27 edition (or similar), thats why I pasted the text from it.

Did the KJV translators use the same manuscript as the NASB?

 

[trofimus]

I read the link. Where is the proof that one manuscript is more accurate than another? Older does not mean better, there were corrupt versions of the gospels at the same time the gospels were written.

I am sorry if I was not clear, the link was just something that could be interesting to read for you, not the answer to your question.

To your question - there are serveral things regarding the accuracy, mainly the age of the manuscript.

Copy of copy is less accurate than the original. 4rd generation of copies is less accurate than the 2nd one. Etc.

This is only one of many possible things.

 

[trofimus]

Did the KJV translators use the same manuscript as the NASB?

No. Neither of them used technically any manuscript.

Both teams used the compilation of texts, critical editions composed of manuscripts.

The KJV translators used the edition of Erasmus (or some of its derivate like Stephanus) and maybe something else.
The edition of Erasmus was based on only several greek manuscripts, I think about 10? Not sure about the number, but really only few. The oldest from about 10th century.
Not because of their decision or some mysterious selection, there simply was nothing else to use in that days.

The NASB, I think, used the modern editions that are based on much older manuscripts and on thousand of manuscripts. The oldest from the 2nd century, the oldest complete codexes from th 3rd/4th century.
Probably UBS4 or NA26 or something like this.

 

[trofimus]

Did the KJV translators use the same manuscript as the NASB?

I suppose this is what interests you:

Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί - NA27
"θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" - Textus receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza etc)

See the first word - OS (he, who, somebody who we are talking about) vs THEOS (God)

First manuscrips were written only in uppercase and the English "th" is only one letter in Greek (θ), so it looked like :
θEOS vs OS.

We can have two teories:
1. Originals had θEOS and during copying first two letters dropped out.
2. Originals had OS and during copying somebody wrongly read it like "God" and wrote "THEOS".

The oldest manuscripts have OS only, so it is more probable 1. is the right theory.


Both editions have "in the flesh", thought. So this is the right translation for both.

 

[KJV1611]

I am sorry if I was not clear, the link was just something that could be interesting to read for you, not the answer to your question.

To your question - there are serveral things regarding the accuracy, mainly the age of the manuscript.

Copy of copy is less accurate than the original. 4rd generation of copies is less accurate than the 2nd one. Etc.

This is only one of many possible things.

You do know that corrupt manuscripts have been around since the beginning right? In other words very shortly after Paul wrote his espistles, gnostics were perverting it.

 

[John146]

My loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and NT. Yours are clearly in a translation into English from which convey difficulty in a modern 21st century reader.

I guess you have no loyalties then since we do not have the original Scriptures. We should never place more emphasis on the originals than God Himself who had no loyalties to the originals. Maybe the most valuable original ever is the original ten commandments in which God wrote with His own finger. Not long after, Moses would throw them down and break them into pieces. Did God panic or get angry for breaking His originals? Nope, He just had Moses make a copy of what God originally wrote.

 

[trofimus]

You do know that corrupt manuscripts have been around since the beginning right? In other words very shortly after Paul wrote his espistles, gnostics were perverting it.

Maybe there were, I am not aware of any that would survive the likvidation of the roman church. But I do not say any of them is not preserved till today, probably in the Qumran writings..

The variations we are discussing now are not some gnostic perversions, that would look much different.

To have the word "lord" in Acts not 45x, but "only" 32x (example, not the real numbers) is not any gnostic perversions and does not make Christ less "Lord".

 

[KJV1611]

I suppose this is what interests you:

Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί - NA27
"θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" - Textus receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza etc)

See the first word - OS (he, who, somebody who we are talking about) vs THEOS (God)

First manuscrips were written only in uppercase and the English "th" is only one letter in Greek (θ), so it looked like :
θEOS vs OS.

We can have two teories:
1. Originals had θEOS and during copying first two letters dropped out.
2. Originals had OS and during copying somebody wrongly read it like "God" and wrote "THEOS".

The oldest manuscripts have OS only, so it is more probable 1. is the right theory.


Both editions have "in the flesh", thought. So this is the right translation for both.

I think I'm following you.Textus Receptus has "God" but NA27 (not sure what that means) has "he". Is this correct?

 

[trofimus]

I think I'm following you.Textus Receptus has "God" but NA27 (not sure what that means) has "he". Is this correct?

Correct. And the difference between these two words are just two letters, very easy to add or to drop out during copying by hand.

It is not any intentional "perversion", its just normal and natural error of normal people.

NA27 is the code name for the modern edition of the Greek New Testament, Nestlé Aland, number 27

 

[KJV1611]

Correct. And the difference between these two words are just two letters, very easy to add or to drop out during copying by hand.

It is not any intentional "perversion", its just normal and natural error of normal people.

NA27 is the code name for the modern edition of the Greek New Testament, Nestlé Aland, number 27

In this case we have a discrepancy between the two manuscripts lines, one promotes the diety of Jesus and the other diminishes the diety of Christ.

Corrupt and pure manuscripts have existed simultaneously since the beginning so older in no way shape or form means more accurate, so we we really have no physical evidence for either version being correct other than the text itself and what it says.

Why would you go with a version that diminishes or conceals the fact that God was manifest in the flesh? Doesn't the revelation or lack of revelation of the text qualify which text is right?

 

[trofimus]

In this case we have a discrepancy between the two manuscripts lines, one promotes the diety of Jesus and the other diminishes the diety of Christ.

No. No existing line of manuscripts denies or diminishes the deity of Christ.
We do not have to have the word "God" in every verse to believe that Christ is God.

We can only say that in one line of manuscripts there is the word "God" in this specific verse and in another one there is the word "He" in this specific verse.

Corrupt and pure manuscripts have existed simultaneously since the beginning so older in no way shape or form means more accurate, so we we really have no physical evidence for either version being correct other than the text itself and what it says.

If you have 10 manuscripts from the same era, place etc. and 9 of them have the same verse and one of them does not have this one verse, you can be quite sure the verse belongs there.

If you have some variant only of the late date and never in the ancient manuscripts from various areas of the world, you can be quite sure it was added later.

Not always, but generally it is so.

Why would you go with a version that diminishes or conceals the fact that God was manifest in the flesh? Doesn't the revelation or lack of revelation of the text qualify which text is right?

We are not choosing versions that we like the most because it uses words "Lord" or "God" more.

We should be choosing version most close to the original.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It doesn't matter how many different way the English language can translated a word why would you "try" to keep improving the word of God if it is already preserved. The word of God is not a lottery game where you just keep playing in hope of winning this is sacred, holy, scriptures THAT AGAIN Christians have needed to revolt against tyranny of other religions and you throw it away like is nothing.

There is no need to improve the English when they came for the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS in Greek. Therefore, you would need to study Greek and translated it and why do that when God already chose bis people to translated it. You think you might do a better job revising the manuscripts but might in fact damage it. The Greek manuscirpts had nothing to do with it not being in English bc the English langiage didnt exist so thats not even a reasonable argument.

Proverbs 16:25 - There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Revelation (22:18-19) - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of THIS BOOK, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in THIS BOOK:
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.

1. The only "perfect" word of God was the origional manuscripts. Of which have been long gone. There is no perfect english text, because the english languag alone is not perfect. (the greek for one is not perfect. but it much more pronounced and complete)
2. Your whole argument is based on the presumption that the KJV is a perfect text. Thats quite an assumption.
3. The english language changed, One does not have to "make it any better" just "make it more readable to todays audience"
4. Point three would go for any english text which is now far outdated (be it KJV or ASV or whatever)
5. Rev 12 is talking about prophesy Not all of the word is prophesy there are many types of language used.. Rev 12 is John talking baout HIS BOOK (revelation) not the whole word. So using it to support your THEORY is pushing it to say the least

 

[John146]

1. The only "perfect" word of God was the origional manuscripts. Of which have been long gone. There is no perfect english text, because the english languag alone is not perfect. (the greek for one is not perfect. but it much more pronounced and complete)
2. Your whole argument is based on the presumption that the KJV is a perfect text. Thats quite an assumption.
3. The english language changed, One does not have to "make it any better" just "make it more readable to todays audience"
4. Point three would go for any english text which is now far outdated (be it KJV or ASV or whatever)
5. Rev 12 is talking about prophesy Not all of the word is prophesy there are many types of language used.. Rev 12 is John talking baout HIS BOOK (revelation) not the whole word. So using it to support your THEORY is pushing it to say the least

As I said earlier, never use an outside source to define the words of the Bible. Use the Bible itself. That's the beauty of the KJV. It will define itself. That is why it does not matter if a word in English has changed through time in its' meaning or has several definitions. It does not matter. Use the Bible itself to define a word. It will always provide the correct definition.

 

[notuptome]

As I said earlier, never use an outside source to define the words of the Bible. Use the Bible itself. That's the beauty of the KJV. It will define itself. That is why it does not matter if a word in English has changed through time in its' meaning or has several definitions. It does not matter. Use the Bible itself to define a word. It will always provide the correct definition.

Yikes. Do you understand that the KJV is a translation? Jesus and the apostles did not speak the Kings English. You must use outside sources to define words in the bible. You must also use context to determine the correct definition of the word when several options are presented.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Grace777x70]

This can be interesting for you:

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

Mainly the chapter "The King James Version is perfect."

To your question - KJV translator had several dozens of late manuscripts.

Now we have 6000 manuscripts, both late and very ancient ones from various areas of the world.

So we have much broader and better base for the original text today.

The other aspect to this discussion is that we also have found many more secular sources of the usage of Greek words from the past. These shed more light on how the word was used back in NT times.

Words convey meanings to us and the writers of the NT letters used "words" to convey meanings to the people they were writing to at the time.

The Holy Spirit would use these "words" to speak truth to them - and He does the very same thing to us today in every language of the world. He uses "words". There is no special revelation or "anointing" in 17th century English.

We can see this in Cornelius and the angel told him to send for Peter and that he will "speak words" to him to bring life and truth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is no debate. Until you or any other can point us to something that you believe is the infallible, 100% trustworthy word of God, then it's no debate.

Can you provide a Bible that is trustworthy? Do you have a Bible you can give to the lost world and tell them that they can trust everything in it to be true? Every book, every verse, every word? No? Then there's no debate.

lol.. Whatever, Keep believing your KJV is perfect. in spite all of the evidence which proves it flawed..

There is no perfect english text. like there is no perfect spanish text or russian text of chinese text. They are ALL interpretations of men..

And to say only this english text is perfect And the other ones do not have to be perfect. we that is just putting yourself above all others nations in the world who do not teach english. WHy do you think God loves you more than the chinese or russian or the spanyard? when scripture says he loves all..

That is why this is not only a "sad" debate But why people say it is arrogant and pridefull (not saying you are, just the belief)