The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- 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.
Whatever James White is he is NOT an actual textual scholar who has actually collated the actual manuscripts. But Burgon and Scrivener spent their lifetime in this endeavor. Further White has been thoroughly debunked so why waste time on him? If you want to know more about why he cannot be trusted, read this. https://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html
Given the fact that from 1600 to approx 1900 ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS AND PREACHERS used the King James Bible as their Bible should be sufficient to establish that "deception somewhere" lies with Westcott & Hort.
Check out www.biblestudytools.com and see for yourself that all these commentators used the KJB:
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown
John Lightfoot
John Gill
Matthew Henry
A. T. Robertson
C. I. Scofield
C. H. Spurgeon
John Wesley
Alexander McLaren
Given the fact that from 1600 to approx 1900 ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS AND PREACHERS used the King James Bible as their Bible should be sufficient to establish that "deception somewhere" lies with Westcott & Hort.
Check out www.biblestudytools.com and see for yourself that all these commentators used the KJB:
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown
John Lightfoot
John Gill
Matthew Henry
A. T. Robertson
C. I. Scofield
C. H. Spurgeon
John Wesley
Alexander McLaren
The only way White has been debunked is in the mind of a KJVO nut job. It never happened.
So you use those of the KJV era when that was the most common translation to use, and also the Reformed in your list as Scholars. Scholars you hate, malign, ridicule, and accuse as preaching another Gospel being used by you as proof to back you up?
That's quite the hypocrisy on your part.
"Christian Scholars and Preachers" you say? You've slammed these many times as preaching "another gospel" along with other Reformed brothers and sisters on here.
When you need support they're "Christian Scholars" and when you want to use them as false and malign them for your own purposes they preach "another Gospel."
Unreal but not surprising.
So you use those of the KJV era when that was the most common translation to use, and also the Reformed in your list as Scholars. Scholars you hate, malign, ridicule, and accuse as preaching another Gospel being used by you as proof to back you up?
That's quite the hypocrisy on your part.
"Christian Scholars and Preachers" you say? You've slammed these many times as preaching "another gospel" along with other Reformed brothers and sisters on here.
When you need support they're "Christian Scholars" and when you want to use them as false and malign them for your own purposes they preach "another Gospel."
Unreal but not surprising.
Last edited:
I agree with you that the TR and the majority text are probably more reliable than Vaticanus or Sinaticus.
I believe that the KJV is the most beautiful and literary of all translations.
I believe that the KJV is at least as accurate as any of the more modern translations.
I do NOT believe that any translation (including the KJV) is uniquely inspired; or that any translation (regardless how poorly translated) is corrupted to the point that God can't use it.
I believe that attacks on other translations do more harm than good to the task of obeying the Great commission.
I believe that the KJV is the most beautiful and literary of all translations.
I believe that the KJV is at least as accurate as any of the more modern translations.
I do NOT believe that any translation (including the KJV) is uniquely inspired; or that any translation (regardless how poorly translated) is corrupted to the point that God can't use it.
I believe that attacks on other translations do more harm than good to the task of obeying the Great commission.
As anyone can verify some of those listed are Reformed and others are not. That is immaterial. We are NOT discussing their theology but their use of the King James Bible as the basis of their commentaries. (BTW apart from their Calvinism, those Reformed men had some very good commentary on the Bible per se, so the only thing I would not accept is their Reformed Theology regarding salvation).
The issue was whether there was any "deception" in putting together the KJV. And it should be obvious from this list that had there been any deception, these men would have brought it to the attention of the world and stopped using the KJB.
On the other hand, hardly anyone informed the Christian world that Westcott & Hort had perpetrated A HOAX. So just so we know where the deception was, I will quote from probably the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- Frederick H.A. Scrivener (who wrote the textbook on textual criticism which is quoted from below). And all modern versions follow W&H.
The Revision Revised, pp iv, v.
The issue was whether there was any "deception" in putting together the KJV. And it should be obvious from this list that had there been any deception, these men would have brought it to the attention of the world and stopped using the KJB.
On the other hand, hardly anyone informed the Christian world that Westcott & Hort had perpetrated A HOAX. So just so we know where the deception was, I will quote from probably the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- Frederick H.A. Scrivener (who wrote the textbook on textual criticism which is quoted from below). And all modern versions follow W&H.
The Revision Revised, pp iv, v.
Last edited:
All of the manuscripts that we have that include the entire New Testament are at least partially corrupted; and that, of course, is the reason why we have the discipline known as textual criticism—the discipline of determining the most original version of a text. The manuscripts that comprise what is known today as the Majority Text of the New Testament are of recent origin and are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. A good analogy are coping machines—especially old copy machines. The first copy of an original document will always have some imperfections. When that copy is copied, the resultant second copy will have the imperfections of the first copy, plus imperfections of its own. When that second copy is copied, the resultant third copy will have the imperfections of the first and second copy, plus imperfections of its own. When that third copy is copied, the resultant fourth copy will have …. Therefore, the earlier the copy, the fewer will be the imperfections.
However, even very ancient copies may possibly have many corruptions. Therefore, men and women employed in textual criticism of the Bible examine the variants (variorum readings) in the manuscripts for clues regarding their genuineness. These clues are of many different kinds, and are discussed in detail on various websites about the textual criticism of the Bible. However, textual criticism is not limited to the Bible, but is also applied to the Qur’an, the works of William Shakespeare, and many other writings.
Not true!
However, even very ancient copies may possibly have many corruptions. Therefore, men and women employed in textual criticism of the Bible examine the variants (variorum readings) in the manuscripts for clues regarding their genuineness. These clues are of many different kinds, and are discussed in detail on various websites about the textual criticism of the Bible. However, textual criticism is not limited to the Bible, but is also applied to the Qur’an, the works of William Shakespeare, and many other writings.
Not true!
From the 8 or 10 long, long threads that I have been involved with on this very topic. If you had been here long enough to be involved in those discussions as well, you would understand why I say that.
I won't waste my time going back to find a quote that "proves" what I said, but most other people here know why I said it. There are at least 2 or 3 really rabid, vocal KJVO folks on here, and at least 2 of them have either stated or implied that the KJV is the ONLY true word of God, and that if you don't read it, you are not reading the "pure words of God", and will not get the true message that God wants us to have.
If you do not think that there are KJVO people that believe that, then you are deluded, or naïve. Or both.
Not all KJVO people are that far out there, but many are. Many of them are not true KJVO, but simply trust and use the KJVO... but they make no claim that it is the ONLY version we should use... Which is where most truly NON-KJV people are.
I think the KJV is a good translation, probably about as accurate as most people need, or can use, but I think it is written in an archaic language style, which can inhibit many people from understanding things.
We have several better translations now, that are written in the language that we speak in the 21'st century.... but if someone prefers the KJV, it doesn't bother me at all..... unlike the KJVO folks.
I won't waste my time going back to find a quote that "proves" what I said, but most other people here know why I said it. There are at least 2 or 3 really rabid, vocal KJVO folks on here, and at least 2 of them have either stated or implied that the KJV is the ONLY true word of God, and that if you don't read it, you are not reading the "pure words of God", and will not get the true message that God wants us to have.
If you do not think that there are KJVO people that believe that, then you are deluded, or naïve. Or both.
Not all KJVO people are that far out there, but many are. Many of them are not true KJVO, but simply trust and use the KJVO... but they make no claim that it is the ONLY version we should use... Which is where most truly NON-KJV people are.
I think the KJV is a good translation, probably about as accurate as most people need, or can use, but I think it is written in an archaic language style, which can inhibit many people from understanding things.
We have several better translations now, that are written in the language that we speak in the 21'st century.... but if someone prefers the KJV, it doesn't bother me at all..... unlike the KJVO folks.
Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and with these lies reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Do you desire partial truth? Or the whole truth from God?
Although, the simple message of the gospel can be found in most versions, but we also find in them contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and other unsound doctrines.
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and with these lies reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Do you desire partial truth? Or the whole truth from God?
Although, the simple message of the gospel can be found in most versions, but we also find in them contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and other unsound doctrines.
