Hey trofimus, just wanted to say that I'm looking into this whole bible version issue thing, its pretty fun and I'm enjoying the things I'm learning. I have college work to do as well so I won't be learning everything within a few days. So I'm glad you commented on this thread, as I probably wouldn't have cared to look more into all this for a long time. And I'm sorry for the way I called you a coward earlier. I should not say to that to a brother in Christ. Even though I didn't mean it in such a harsh way it was still rude of me.
For my KJB supporting brethren
- Thread starter South_FLA
- 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.
I take it from your rhetorical questions that you believe that God is in total control, and that He will not allow mankind to corrupt His words.
Given that, why would you think that God's word in the form of the modern translations is corrupted?
Either God doesn't allow His word to be corrupted 'at all', and therefore all translations including the modern ones are uncorrupted, or He does at least to some degree, and some if not all English translations are corrupted, which means the KJV could logically be corrupted. I ask you to be consistent in your reasoning.
Given that, why would you think that God's word in the form of the modern translations is corrupted?
Either God doesn't allow His word to be corrupted 'at all', and therefore all translations including the modern ones are uncorrupted, or He does at least to some degree, and some if not all English translations are corrupted, which means the KJV could logically be corrupted. I ask you to be consistent in your reasoning.
If you have not read The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I would suggest that do so. The author -- Alfred Edersheim -- was a Hebrew Christian well verse in both Hebrew and Greek, and this book gives excellent insight into the subject. Edersheim make it crystal clear that the Septuagint was a corrupt Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh.
"...From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ‘inspiration,’ and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible.
Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets, and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.
What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars.
Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic..."
"...From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ‘inspiration,’ and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible.
Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets, and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.
What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars.
Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic..."
Last edited:
The short answer is that a COLOSSAL HOAX was perpetrated on the Christian world. The long answer is that Satan hates the Sword of the Spirit -- which even Christ used against him in those temptations -- therefore he used Gnostics to corrupt the New Testament Scripture, and those same corruptions entered into modern versions through the "critical texts" put together by the critics who were already biased against the traditional texts and the Authorized Version.
Even while Paul was alive, he noted that many were trying to corrupt the word of God and succeeding.
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Cor 2:17).
Even while Paul was alive, he noted that many were trying to corrupt the word of God and succeeding.
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Cor 2:17).
Can you tell me where I denigrated people? And I will welcome you challenges as long as you yourself can get a grip and control yourself. Whether you are a Christian is of no concern to me... That is between you and GOD!.
I heard a story about an older fellow that came to his pastor and was telling him about a book that he was reading. He was telling him about how Christian this book was. The pastor told the audience that this confession from this old fellow simply ruined his whole day. You see, the fellow was a Christian of forty years yet was calling the Book (written by a certain TV preacher of Hyper GRACE) as being totally Christian. WOW!
This is what I think when people on this forum tell me that GOD has not been and is not in control and that His Written WORD has been corrupted by Mankind over the years. Like the pastor, it ruins my day and I usually speak up when I have the time. If in your (?) mind this is denigrating people then so be it, I will continue to do so at least until a Moderator throws me off the forum.
As far as calling me a school boy, calling others and myself ---"small minded people" and don't forget the cartoon slur , I think you can do better that that......What do you think?
Last edited:
Nothing but conspiracy theories, lies and sensationalism. Except for the part that Satan hates God's Word. Probably why there are errors in the KJV, and added portions.
Yes, through philosophy and twisting Scripture, not translational errors, of which context you are forcing this passage via your post.
Wait? Isn't that exactly what they did in Paul's day? It sure is, you're forcing the Word into a false context here.
Also, KJVO philosophy has contorted Psalm 12 to support the KJV which isn't the intent of Psalm 12. That would be corrupting the Word philosophically, making it say something it does not say, and is no different that the false teachers of Paul's day had been doing.
Hmmmmm...
Yes, through philosophy and twisting Scripture, not translational errors, of which context you are forcing this passage via your post.
Wait? Isn't that exactly what they did in Paul's day? It sure is, you're forcing the Word into a false context here.
Also, KJVO philosophy has contorted Psalm 12 to support the KJV which isn't the intent of Psalm 12. That would be corrupting the Word philosophically, making it say something it does not say, and is no different that the false teachers of Paul's day had been doing.
Hmmmmm...
1. Where did you come up with this LUDICROUS idea? Prove it or retract such nonsensical statements
2. Did you know that since every manuscript, version, lectionary, and quotation from the ECF in existence (and for every book of the Bible) has not been collated as yet, what is termed "the Majority Text" is a misnomer. However, the Traditional Text (also known as the Byzantine Text) was for all intents and purposes, "The Received Text", and between Erasmus and the Elzevir brothers printed editions, there are only minor variations of little significance.
3. Why don't you tell is which is the true English Bible in your estmation, and I will prove to you conclusively that it is based upon the corrupt critical texts based upon corrupted manuscripts, hence no Bible.
4. There are a whole bunch of "experts" here (and elsewhere) who seem to have made it their life's ambition to tear down the KJV. Just remember -- it is the true Word of God -- and you will give account for your attacks. This is not just a game of ping-pong, where people keeping going back and forth with nonsensical statements. If there are attacks on the KJV they originate with Satan.
2. Did you know that since every manuscript, version, lectionary, and quotation from the ECF in existence (and for every book of the Bible) has not been collated as yet, what is termed "the Majority Text" is a misnomer. However, the Traditional Text (also known as the Byzantine Text) was for all intents and purposes, "The Received Text", and between Erasmus and the Elzevir brothers printed editions, there are only minor variations of little significance.
3. Why don't you tell is which is the true English Bible in your estmation, and I will prove to you conclusively that it is based upon the corrupt critical texts based upon corrupted manuscripts, hence no Bible.
4. There are a whole bunch of "experts" here (and elsewhere) who seem to have made it their life's ambition to tear down the KJV. Just remember -- it is the true Word of God -- and you will give account for your attacks. This is not just a game of ping-pong, where people keeping going back and forth with nonsensical statements. If there are attacks on the KJV they originate with Satan.
The so-called "Majority Text" or more precisely The Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is another hoax. Please note that:
1. It is not synonymous with the Received Text
2. It is a mythical text
3. It is an insufficient text
4. It is a provisional text
5. It is an inconsistent text
For details please read and study
MOVING AWAY FROM PRESERVED SCRIPTURE: EXAMINING THE HODGES-FARSTAD MAJORITY TEXT
1. It is not synonymous with the Received Text
2. It is a mythical text
3. It is an insufficient text
4. It is a provisional text
5. It is an inconsistent text
For details please read and study
MOVING AWAY FROM PRESERVED SCRIPTURE: EXAMINING THE HODGES-FARSTAD MAJORITY TEXT
well I asked my silly question in response to your statement below for clarification.
I care about more about clarification than agreement .
Now about the error count in the KJV . That seems to be why you posted . I think you can answer them better than I . You did say earlier in this thread that the KJV had 1%-2% errors from the originals.
So those numbers are yours . That's what 1% looks like . Given the fact that the KJV has 12143 different words , 783137 total words ,and 31102 verses . I just did the math for you.
you asked if I believed God was in control how how could he let mankind corrupt His word ? Well then ok then odiously the new translations are accurate. How could God let man corrupt His word ?
As your other questions
I believe God is in control Christ is my Lord ,Savior and King .
The rest of your questions answered by The first answer.
Blessings
Bill
I care about more about clarification than agreement .
Now about the error count in the KJV . That seems to be why you posted . I think you can answer them better than I . You did say earlier in this thread that the KJV had 1%-2% errors from the originals.
So those numbers are yours . That's what 1% looks like . Given the fact that the KJV has 12143 different words , 783137 total words ,and 31102 verses . I just did the math for you.
you asked if I believed God was in control how how could he let mankind corrupt His word ? Well then ok then odiously the new translations are accurate. How could God let man corrupt His word ?
As your other questions
I believe God is in control Christ is my Lord ,Savior and King .
The rest of your questions answered by The first answer.
Blessings
Bill
Collations | cspmt
The KJV does not represent the majority of manuscripts. Some readings are not present in even one.
Textus receptus is not a real majority text. Its readings are somewhat of the majority line, but has many errors and sometimes even taken verses from Latin, because Erasmus had some white spaces, his few manuscripts did not contain all verses.
Majority text is no misnomer. Its a term naming the reading of majority of existing Greek manuscripts, mainly from Byzantine family.
Textus receptus is based on few not very good byzantine manuscripts, so the Textus receptus is slightly more similar to majority byzantine text than to eclectic text, but really not much.
I do not use English Bibles, but my opinion is:
a) If you want to have a good literal translation, use NASB
b) if you want to have a good traditional translation, use NKJV (this one is even more Textus receptus than the KJV)
c) if you want to have a free translation, use New Living Translation or something like that
d) if you want to have something balanced in the middle between literal and free, use NIV
There is no one Bible translation having all features.
Or, if you do not want to use translations, you can learn Greek.
The KJV is not "the true Word of God".
The KJV is an English translation of critical text made by Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus (NT) and of text made by Jews (Masoretic text).
The KJV does not represent the majority of manuscripts. Some readings are not present in even one.
Textus receptus is not a real majority text. Its readings are somewhat of the majority line, but has many errors and sometimes even taken verses from Latin, because Erasmus had some white spaces, his few manuscripts did not contain all verses.
Majority text is no misnomer. Its a term naming the reading of majority of existing Greek manuscripts, mainly from Byzantine family.
Textus receptus is based on few not very good byzantine manuscripts, so the Textus receptus is slightly more similar to majority byzantine text than to eclectic text, but really not much.
I do not use English Bibles, but my opinion is:
a) If you want to have a good literal translation, use NASB
b) if you want to have a good traditional translation, use NKJV (this one is even more Textus receptus than the KJV)
c) if you want to have a free translation, use New Living Translation or something like that
d) if you want to have something balanced in the middle between literal and free, use NIV
There is no one Bible translation having all features.
Or, if you do not want to use translations, you can learn Greek.
The KJV is not "the true Word of God".
The KJV is an English translation of critical text made by Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus (NT) and of text made by Jews (Masoretic text).
And what do you think that Erasmus did?
He compared several late manuscripts and decided (scholarly) which words to use in his compilation.
And what do you think that the KJV translators did?
They had 7 editions of Textus Receptus and decided (scholarly) which words to use (and sometimes even did not use any and borrowed from Latin).
So what the heck are you talking about? The KJV did not fall from heaven, its a middle-ages scholarship work.
He compared several late manuscripts and decided (scholarly) which words to use in his compilation.
And what do you think that the KJV translators did?
They had 7 editions of Textus Receptus and decided (scholarly) which words to use (and sometimes even did not use any and borrowed from Latin).
So what the heck are you talking about? The KJV did not fall from heaven, its a middle-ages scholarship work.