Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

  • 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.
There are many things in the Bible that cannot be perfectly explained.
One can do their best but it ultimately takes faith to believe in all of what the Bible says.
All I can do is encourage you to believe the promises of God and that will help put you on a better path to understanding and trust in ALL of what God says. I say this because there are Christians in the Modern Bible Movement who have simply abandoned the faith because they don't have a settled word of God. This is simply the fact or fruit of the movement itself. However, if you were to contrast this with those who trust the TR/KJV, the number of those who abandon the faith is nowhere close to the numbers in Modern Bible world. You can research it for yourself. Facts do not lie.


....
I do believe what the Bible says, but I don't take the KJV as "the Bible" without error. You do. You have to find explanations for the obvious inconsistencies; I don't. I suggest you start finding explanations that don't demonstrate a shocking lack of integrity on your part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magenta
The differences between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 are in the Masoretic Text, probably the result of scribal error. Instead of simply acknowledging the error, KJVO feel the need to construct elaborate theories in an attempt to justify the KJV.
 
I’m not KJV only, but it sounds a reasonable scenario. Why do you think it’s ridiculous?
It is an attempt to sidestep what is patently obvious to anyone not brainwashed into believing that the KJV is error-free. See the middle paragraph in my later post, #40.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
The idea that a person must know the Bible’s original languages in order to understand God’s truth is questionable—especially when eternal salvation is connected to believing and obeying the Word of God. Jesus said, “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
The KJVO crowd must give us the edition they are using since tons of errors were found in the first KJVO. Here is a little post I did on another forum:

The King James Version (KJV) was originally published, in 1611, by the royal

printer, Robert Barker. In the margins of that very first edition, there

were some 8,422 notes. Several of these notes indicate that a particular

verse itself may not be exactly correct.



For example, here is Luke 17:36 as it appears in the New King James Version



“Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”



Here is the note that appeared in the margin of that original 1611 edition:



“This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.”



If you have a NIV, don’t bother looking this verse up. It is not in that

Translation. What the note said in essence was, “we have reason to believe that this verse should not be in here at all.”



Well, therein lies Textual Criticism, which is the study of what the

Original Autographs (these are the actual writings of the Apostles

themselves) exactly contained. In other words, before we can know what the

Bible says, we need to know what the Bible is. And this is no small task.

Once a group of Textual Critics finish their work, they turn their work over

to the printers to publish. That way, we can read the Bible.



In this article, I would like to draw our attention to some amusing mistakes

that found their way into the KJV. Fortunately, they have all been fixed

with subsequent Editions. Bear in mind, the King James Version went through

many revisions, including one the very next year in 1612. And again in 1613.

And many more after that.



Oddly enough, the KJV was translated from only about six Greek manuscripts

dating no earlier than the 9th century. Although there are more than 5,400

Greek manuscripts today, back in the 1600’s that was not the case.



The relatively few Greek manuscripts that are behind this KJV date between

the 9th and 14th centuries. Since the publishing of the first KJV, more

than 2,000 Greek manuscripts have been found. And some of these date back as

early as the 2nd century. (Remember, the earliest Greek manuscript

supporting the KJV is 800 years later.) With the new discovery of older

manuscripts, modern versions have come on the scene. The NIV is based on

different Greek manuscripts than is the KJV. That is why they differ at

places, as noted above.



Here is one example as to why they differ. When a man by the name of Erasmus

was putting together the Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, he could

find no existing Greek manuscript that contained the words in 1 John 5:7,

which reads in the KJV, “For there are three that bear record in heaven; the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” It’s in the

KJV even to this day, but Erasmus refused to put it in his Greek Edition,

unless…



That was his mistake! Erasmus went on public record saying that if anyone

could produce even one Greek manuscript with the disputed passage in it, he

would put it in his next Greek Edition. (These disputed words were first

noticed in a not-so-old Latin version.) Erasmus’ first two Greek New

Testaments did not contain this passage.



Well, along comes an enemy of Erasmus, by the name of Edward Lee, and he

mysteriously produces a Greek manuscript (a very highly suspect one, I might

add) that contained these words. So, Erasmus, true to his word, yet being

convinced it would not do too much damage to sacred Scripture, unwillingly,

put it in his third Edition. Erasmus did note that he doubted its

authenticity. Right here is where my opening line fits in. He was true to

his word, but not the Word of God.



Well, no early Greek manuscript has this passage in it. Not one early

manuscript! No Greek manuscript dated in the first 5 centuries has this

passage in it. So, if we look at most modern versions, we simply will not

find that passage in it. There are a lot of these types of disputes in the

various manuscripts, practically all of them very insignificant. So, one set of Greek manuscripts read one way and another set of manuscripts say something slightly different, and that’s why we have different versions today.



These differences in Greek manuscripts are actually to be expected. Let’s

suppose, for example, you asked 100 people to copy the book, Moby Dick. Do

you think any two would be exactly alike? Of course not! And if we took the

original book away, and then tried to recreate it, using only the 100

copies, how close to the original Moby Dick do you think we could get? Real

close! If on page 28, I wrote Moby Dock, and my brother, Tiger, wrote Muby

Dick, and 98 other people wrote Moby Dick, would you consider my wording

(Dock) or my brother’s wording (Muby) correct? There is your answer to the

Greek manuscripts. The variants are about as tough to work through as this

preceding example. (In fact, I know my brother well enough to also say the

he will misspell “receive” every time. He puts the i before the e. And

remember, every time that “receive” is misspelled, that’s another variant, even though it’s the same variant each time. If, for example each time misspelled is observed, that’s 48 times, that’s 48 variants. As you can see, they add up pretty quickly.)



Let me show you why some people are initially shocked when they begin their

study of Textual Criticism. The Greek New Testament has roughly 138,162

words. Taking all the 5,400 manuscripts together, there are somewhere

between 400,000 and 500,000 variations. That’s about 3+ variants PER WORD!



Maybe this will help. Let me give you a couple of those variants in one

small phrase in the Bible:



In John 4:1 some manuscripts read, “Then when Jesus knew.” Some other

manuscripts read, “Then when the Lord knew.” One manuscript has, “Then when

Jecus knew.” So, some say “Jesus” and some say “the Lord” and one misspelled

“Jesus.” (There are actually a few more that misspell “Jesus”)



So, how many variants do you see? Are you concerned with any of them? Here’s

the good news: That is just about the extent of the vast majority of

variants in the New Testament. As you can see, not knowing the history of the Bible makes us vulnerable to every wind of doctrine, or false claims against the Word. But when we add up all the ‘discrepancies’ and ‘variants’ there is absolutely nothing to be concerned with. Absolutely nothing! The preservation of the Word of God over the years, one could argue, has a supernatural element to it.



I mentioned earlier that since the first publication of the KJV of 1611, of

which there have literally been thousands of corrections to it, many Greek

Manuscripts have been discovered. How one or two of those manuscripts were

discovered are interesting stories.



cont...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
More than 200 years after the first KJV, in the Spring of 1844, a man by the

name Count Konstantin von Tischendorf, a man (genius) fluent in classical

languages and dialects, took a trip to Mount Sinai to visit a monastery. He

took this trip in hopes of discovering ancient biblical documents. The

monastery he visited was called St. Catherine’s, then occupied by Russian

monks. Initially, he was a bit disappointed when he was unable to find what

he was looking for. However, as he looked in a small room near the Library,

he noticed something very unusual in the trash can, of all places! His heart

began to race as he approached this waste basket. The contents, sheets of

‘paper’ written on animal skin, seemed all too familiar to him. He was well

aware that ancient documents were written on the very kind of “trash” he was

oking at. Well learned in Koine Greek, he picked up a sheet and began

reading it. It was the Old Testament! As he kept digging deeper, the New

Testament was also there. There were 129 pages of the oldest known

recordings of the Bible, written almost 1,500 years earlier. Who knows how

many pages had already been burned to warm those Russian monks.



Let me add an interesting twist (the second story). Tischendorf had a friend

named Samuel Tragelles. Tragelles was also a scholar. Excited by von

Tischendorg’s discovery, and in hopes of finding more biblical manuscripts

himself, Tragelles asked the Pope if he could visit the Vatican library. The

Pope agreed to let him in, but put some unusual restrictions on him. The

Pope insisted that he not bring any writing material with him into the

library. To insure compliance, he would be searched on his way in and out.

Additionally, he was only allowed to sit there for six hours a day. All of

this Tragelles agreed to, and did so for three months. Tragelles discovered

a document similar to that of his friend, Tischendorf. Rather than notifying

the Pope that he had just stumbled upon an ancient manuscript of the Bible,

he took another route. You may not believe this, but Tragelles, apparently

endowed with a great memory, memorized the entire manuscript, piece by

piece, not just the Greek and Hebrew, but the Aramaic as well! What he did

was memorize a small portion, about six hour’s worth, then went to his

personal room and wrote down what he had memorized. After three months, he

was able to memorized most of the Bible in its original languages!



Hope you enjoyed that brief digression.



Well, I think I said I wanted to list a few amusing mistakes that the

printers made while publishing the KJV. Here they are:



In the KJV, the seventh commandment was slightly altered. The word “not” was

accidentally omitted. With this oversight, the KJV read, “You shall commit

adultery.” Not sure how many copies were circulated before this omission was

noticed. I do know this, after this error was duly noted, and corrected I

might add, scoffers labeled this edition the “Wicked Bible.”



In the garden of Gethsemane, the first KJV had “Judas” going there to pray,

not Jesus.



When John in Revelation 21:1 saw the new heaven and earth, he described it

as having “no more sea.” The KJV, in an early edition, once again omitted a

word (no). Hence, in this version’s rendition of the new heaven and earth,

there was actually ‘more sea.’



Here’s a good one. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, it’s not the ‘righteous’ who

inherit the kingdom, it’s the “unrighteous.” Not so sure I don’t like that

better!



John 5:14 is a close second for the funniest. After Jesus heals the

paralytic man, he admonishes him to “sin no more.” However, two letters

where reversed in this KJV. Can you guess which two? Yup! If the printer was

right, that man was asked to sin ‘on’ more! Must have been the same person

who worked on the Commandments.



Psalm 119:161 was goofed. But in this case, we can see why. Here is that

verse as it should have appeared:



Princes persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



Notice how the printers subliminally personalize it, albeit by mistake. Here

is how it appeared in that KJV:



Printers persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



In Luke, you recall when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three

times. Nope, It was Philip, as far as the KJV printers could tell. At least

both names start with a P.



Although a rather obscure passage, the mistake in Ezekiel 47:10 should have

been caught (get it?). In this verse, the fisherman stand (that’s the

correct wording), but according to the KJV, the fish stand. That would be

quite a feat.



This last one I mention is found in the section of Scripture from which I

chose the name for my daughter. The KJV got all the words right, they just

put two in the wrong order. As we can see they switched them. Here is how it

should have appeared:



“Then Rebekah and her damsels arose, and they rode on the camels and

followed the man.”



Now, I close with this final error. This is how it actually appeared in the KJV. Talk about a damsel in distress!

“Then Rebekah and her camels arose, and they rode on the damsels and followed the man.”

How in the world can anyone make a misteak like that? :o )
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
It is an attempt to sidestep what is patently obvious to anyone not brainwashed into believing that the KJV is error-free. See the middle paragraph in my later post, #40.
There are inaccuracies in translation in the KJV. But what is your reasoning for being certain that this difference between 22 years and 42 years must be one of them, and the proposal that there were two different Ahaziahs is definitely impossible?
 
There are inaccuracies in translation in the KJV. But what is your reasoning for being certain that this difference between 22 years and 42 years must be one of them, and the proposal that there were two different Ahaziahs is definitely impossible?
See the middle paragraph in my post #40. Your queen is answered there.
 
It is an attempt to sidestep what is patently obvious to anyone not brainwashed into believing that the KJV is error-free. See the middle paragraph in my later post, #40.
I’m not KJV only and it is not patently obvious to me.
 
Your condescension is despicable. There is no need to insult me just because I disagree with your view.

The infographic you provided does not demonstrate that there were two Ahaziahs. Rather, it focuses on non-critical differences while glossing over the incontrovertible similarities. There was certainly only one youngest son of Joram. There was certainly only one person who became king immediately after Joram. There was only one person who was the father of Joash.

You are welcome to continue your self-delusion, despite it being pointless. I will stick with the obvious truth: that there is an error in the KJV.
Obviously, I do not know anything about your personal life. No insult was directed at you specifically, as though that concern were unique to you alone or some fault unique to your character alone. My focus was not you alone. While you were included in the conversation of my point, my ultimate point or criticism was directed toward what I believe to be false thinking within the Modern Bible Movement as a whole and the position itself.

Many Modern Bible believers today have a phantom "pick-and-choose your own adventure Bible" mentality. My goal is never to make a personal attack against one individual (although you were mentioned). There is a major difference between criticizing a belief system and attacking a person's private life or character. I was not intending to insult you as if this is your unique problem alone. Many share this false approach to the Bible and so you are not unique to this way of thinking.

Also, while I will offer an apologetic at times, I do not believe I am obligated to always defend Scripture to those who approach it from a position of disbelief because they will not treat such a thing as valuable but as trash. I do not feel compelled to explain every supposed inconsistency that critics point to in the Gospel accounts, whether from atheists, agnostics, or those who question the trustworthiness of portions of Scripture (like Modern Bible proponents do). I believe God's Word is true.

People can arrive at unbelief through many different rationalizations or arguments, whether rejecting one verse, select passages, or the Bible entirely. My position remains that God's words are true, and I believe they are to be received by faith rather than approached from a mindset that begins with doubt and places itself above Scripture.


....

....
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
More than 200 years after the first KJV, in the Spring of 1844, a man by the

name Count Konstantin von Tischendorf, a man (genius) fluent in classical

languages and dialects, took a trip to Mount Sinai to visit a monastery. He

took this trip in hopes of discovering ancient biblical documents. The

monastery he visited was called St. Catherine’s, then occupied by Russian

monks. Initially, he was a bit disappointed when he was unable to find what

he was looking for. However, as he looked in a small room near the Library,

he noticed something very unusual in the trash can, of all places! His heart

began to race as he approached this waste basket. The contents, sheets of

‘paper’ written on animal skin, seemed all too familiar to him. He was well

aware that ancient documents were written on the very kind of “trash” he was

oking at. Well learned in Koine Greek, he picked up a sheet and began

reading it. It was the Old Testament! As he kept digging deeper, the New

Testament was also there. There were 129 pages of the oldest known

recordings of the Bible, written almost 1,500 years earlier. Who knows how

many pages had already been burned to warm those Russian monks.



Let me add an interesting twist (the second story). Tischendorf had a friend

named Samuel Tragelles. Tragelles was also a scholar. Excited by von

Tischendorg’s discovery, and in hopes of finding more biblical manuscripts

himself, Tragelles asked the Pope if he could visit the Vatican library. The

Pope agreed to let him in, but put some unusual restrictions on him. The

Pope insisted that he not bring any writing material with him into the

library. To insure compliance, he would be searched on his way in and out.

Additionally, he was only allowed to sit there for six hours a day. All of

this Tragelles agreed to, and did so for three months. Tragelles discovered

a document similar to that of his friend, Tischendorf. Rather than notifying

the Pope that he had just stumbled upon an ancient manuscript of the Bible,

he took another route. You may not believe this, but Tragelles, apparently

endowed with a great memory, memorized the entire manuscript, piece by

piece, not just the Greek and Hebrew, but the Aramaic as well! What he did

was memorize a small portion, about six hour’s worth, then went to his

personal room and wrote down what he had memorized. After three months, he

was able to memorized most of the Bible in its original languages!



Hope you enjoyed that brief digression.



Well, I think I said I wanted to list a few amusing mistakes that the

printers made while publishing the KJV. Here they are:



In the KJV, the seventh commandment was slightly altered. The word “not” was

accidentally omitted. With this oversight, the KJV read, “You shall commit

adultery.” Not sure how many copies were circulated before this omission was

noticed. I do know this, after this error was duly noted, and corrected I

might add, scoffers labeled this edition the “Wicked Bible.”



In the garden of Gethsemane, the first KJV had “Judas” going there to pray,

not Jesus.



When John in Revelation 21:1 saw the new heaven and earth, he described it

as having “no more sea.” The KJV, in an early edition, once again omitted a

word (no). Hence, in this version’s rendition of the new heaven and earth,

there was actually ‘more sea.’



Here’s a good one. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, it’s not the ‘righteous’ who

inherit the kingdom, it’s the “unrighteous.” Not so sure I don’t like that

better!



John 5:14 is a close second for the funniest. After Jesus heals the

paralytic man, he admonishes him to “sin no more.” However, two letters

where reversed in this KJV. Can you guess which two? Yup! If the printer was

right, that man was asked to sin ‘on’ more! Must have been the same person

who worked on the Commandments.



Psalm 119:161 was goofed. But in this case, we can see why. Here is that

verse as it should have appeared:



Princes persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



Notice how the printers subliminally personalize it, albeit by mistake. Here

is how it appeared in that KJV:



Printers persecute me without a cause,

But my heart stands in awe of Your word.



In Luke, you recall when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three

times. Nope, It was Philip, as far as the KJV printers could tell. At least

both names start with a P.



Although a rather obscure passage, the mistake in Ezekiel 47:10 should have

been caught (get it?). In this verse, the fisherman stand (that’s the

correct wording), but according to the KJV, the fish stand. That would be

quite a feat.



This last one I mention is found in the section of Scripture from which I

chose the name for my daughter. The KJV got all the words right, they just

put two in the wrong order. As we can see they switched them. Here is how it

should have appeared:



“Then Rebekah and her damsels arose, and they rode on the camels and

followed the man.”



Now, I close with this final error. This is how it actually appeared in the KJV. Talk about a damsel in distress!

“Then Rebekah and her camels arose, and they rode on the damsels and followed the man.”

How in the world can anyone make a misteak like that? :o )
Meanwhile your text is shaped by unitarians, Catholics, liberals, and a Mormon.
You did not even have a horse in the race during the Reformation when it comes to having a Bible.
There are endless deceptions in the Modern Bible Movement.
The Modern Bible Movement is basically a money making scheme or money driven enterprise.
Don't believe me? Well, you cannot read the entire NIV without violating copyright.
The NIV changes between its own editions goes even more heretical with its later edition.
People fall away from the faith in the Modern Bible Movement all the time.
Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite have all fallen away from the faith.
This is because they all had the same false belief that "No English Bible can be without error."
Bible students have fallen away from the faith when they learned of the false science of Modern Textual Criticism.
There is no unity over one text and no true memorization in the Modern Bible Movement.
I have catalogued 77 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious.
From new age ideas, to Catholic ideas, and more.
Do you know that the Westcott & Hort movement basically influenced by German Rationalism?
Do you even know what German Rationalism is? Do you care?
The Modern Lexicons have expanded definitions that go beyond its historic usage when you compare them to the older classic lexicons. before the 1700s (such as Buxtorf, and Stephanus' lexicons, etc.). Modern scholarship is well known among TR advocates that they make up lies and stories about Erasmus.
When Modern scholars say how many Greek MSS make up the Textus Receptus Greek, they just make up whatever number comes up in their head in most cases because that number fluctuates even among that same person.
Dan Wallace said in the last 15 minutes of the John Ankerberg show in a KJV debate the the Revised Version was based upon 2,000 manuscripts (Which everyone today knows is false).
People who trust the KJV today alone are called cultists and yet if you were to go back in time to the 1700s, or 1800s, this simply would not be the case at all because that was the standard Bible in use.
So yeah, no thanks. You can stay in your Modern Bible Movement if you like.
But just know its an absolute dumpster fire.




....
 
Obviously, I do not know anything about your personal life. No insult was directed at you specifically, as though that concern were unique to you alone or some fault unique to your character alone. My focus was not you alone. While you were included in the conversation of my point, my ultimate point or criticism was directed toward what I believe to be false thinking within the Modern Bible Movement as a whole and the position itself.

Many Modern Bible believers today have a phantom "pick-and-choose your own adventure Bible" mentality. My goal is never to make a personal attack against one individual (although you were mentioned). There is a major difference between criticizing a belief system and attacking a person's private life or character. I was not intending to insult you as if this is your unique problem alone. Many share this false approach to the Bible and so you are not unique to this way of thinking.

Also, while I will offer an apologetic at times, I do not believe I am obligated to always defend Scripture to those who approach it from a position of disbelief because they will not treat such a thing as valuable but as trash. I do not feel compelled to explain every supposed inconsistency that critics point to in the Gospel accounts, whether from atheists, agnostics, or those who question the trustworthiness of portions of Scripture (like Modern Bible proponents do). I believe God's Word is true.

People can arrive at unbelief through many different rationalizations or arguments, whether rejecting one verse, select passages, or the Bible entirely. My position remains that God's words are true, and I believe they are to be received by faith rather than approached from a mindset that begins with doubt and places itself above Scripture.


....

....
You misunderstand my position completely. I believe Scripture. I just don’t hold that “KJV = Scripture exclusively”. I think your position makes it unlikely if not impossible for you to see the errors that are present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
Yes, and that is true regarding all other reputable translations.
However, all translators are fallible and so no translation is inerrant.
Right . None are " infallible " i agree . If you look at the pri ess ofnthe kjv translatuon it stands out as the most sevire way to translate , tbey had several teams reviewing and revising fbe work of other professuonals tbsy had never even met . This happened for se era years meticulously.

My argument isn't that the kjv is the inky version or that all others are flawed and it's perfect. My argument is more most versions of the Bible are going to communicate the right message to the person seeking the lord in his word ...


whether it was a man in 200 ad studying the Greek and hebrew texts . A man in 1785 studying the. NOw translated from the Greek and Hebrew message in the English language that now exists and is growing rapidly. If this hadn't happened those people who spoke English the masses I mean not the fella gage experts in them but the people couldn't have ever heard the message .

In order for the gospel to be preached to all creation all nations and languages
, The word had to be translated iinto those other languages ....

and also people don't really speak or understand old English as much now so the newer versions are helpful and needed really. There needs to be Spanish versions French versions etc for those people to hear the message ...

Any Bible translated by professionals in a secure way with integrity for the process of revisions is a good thing and probably speaks well to some folks as they personally seek the lord

Ita sort of a rabbit hole. In my view a d another reason for people to argue a out scripture yet really who's to say which version is the " best " ? I can. Believe a certain. Version is the best but ...... how am I ever going to prove that to anyone else ? I'm basing what I know on what others have said either way in the end
 
Meanwhile your text is shaped by unitarians, Catholics, liberals, and a Mormon.

Just some brief thoughts on your post.

My text is the Greek New Testament United Bible Society, I don't bother with English Translations that much. Using the KJV is not a bad thing, but you need to be studying from a Greek Text, even if it is the TR.

You did not even have a horse in the race during the Reformation when it comes to having a Bible.
There was a Greek Bible during the Reformation thanks to Erasmus. But, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts today. The Modern Bible Movement (I have never heard of this) recognizes that as more and more Greek manuscripts are discovered, we are able to be more precise with the text. For example, Jesus was the only begotten of God, but with more manuscripts having been discovered we now know that the actually translation of this phrase is "The only, unique son."

There are endless deceptions in the Modern Bible Movement.
Name three and be specific!
This is because they all had the same false belief that "No English Bible can be without error."
Speaking of errors/variants in the Bible. There are over 500,000 variants/errors among the Greek manuscripts.

Bible students have fallen away from the faith when they learned of the false science of Modern Textual Criticism.
You sound like a newbie to Christianity, so I won't embarrass you. But I worked for the guy you mention below (Dan Wallace) and he is a devout Christian whose life has influenced tens of thousands of students and readers. He personally sent me to Greece to seek out Greek manuscripts. He is without a doubt a genius; I can testify to that personally. You, my friend, are clueless as to the science of Textual Criticism.

There is no unity over one text and no true memorization in the Modern Bible Movement.
The CT is the Greek NT that would be what you call a true text. It technically has about 103% of the Original Autographs. Dan said the goal of TC today is to remove the dross and bring it nearer to the Original Autographs. The KJV was composed by only 6 or 7 Greek manuscripts and not one of these was earlier than the 9th century. Also, unfortunately all these manuscripts for the KJV did not contain much of the last chapter of Revelation. So, they back translated from a Latin manuscript into Greek. In other words, the KJV is a very late Version, about 900 years after the Autographs. d

I have catalogued 77 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious.
How about you list 3 of them that are the most serious and I will respond to them. I want to deal with the actual text, not some hearsay.

From new age ideas, to Catholic ideas, and more.
Do you know that the Westcott & Hort movement basically influenced by German Rationalism?
Do you even know what German Rationalism is? Do you care?
The Modern Lexicons have expanded definitions that go beyond its historic usage when you compare them to the older classic lexicons. before the 1700s (such as Buxtorf, and Stephanus' lexicons, etc.). Modern scholarship is well known among TR advocates that they make up lies and stories about Erasmus.
Sheer poppycock. You seem to think it is ok to make blanket statements without giving real citations.

When Modern scholars say how many Greek MSS make up the Textus Receptus Greek, they just make up whatever number comes up in their head in most cases because that number fluctuates even among that same person.
The actual manuscripts the committee used are a matter of public record.

Dan Wallace said in the last 15 minutes of the John Ankerberg show in a KJV debate the the Revised Version was based upon 2,000 manuscripts (Which everyone today knows is false).
People who trust the KJV today alone are called cultists and yet if you were to go back in time to the 1700s, or 1800s, this simply would not be the case at all because that was the standard Bible in use.
The standard Bible used was the Latin Vulgate since the 4th century. You keep referring to English Translations/Versions and not the Greek Text.
 
Right . None are " infallible " i agree . If you look at the pri ess ofnthe kjv translatuon it stands out as the most sevire way to translate , tbey had several teams reviewing and revising fbe work of other professuonals tbsy had never even met . This happened for se era years meticulously.

My argument isn't that the kjv is the inky version or that all others are flawed and it's perfect. My argument is more most versions of the Bible are going to communicate the right message to the person seeking the lord in his word ...


whether it was a man in 200 ad studying the Greek and hebrew texts . A man in 1785 studying the. NOw translated from the Greek and Hebrew message in the English language that now exists and is growing rapidly. If this hadn't happened those people who spoke English the masses I mean not the fella gage experts in them but the people couldn't have ever heard the message .

In order for the gospel to be preached to all creation all nations and languages
, The word had to be translated iinto those other languages ....

and also people don't really speak or understand old English as much now so the newer versions are helpful and needed really. There needs to be Spanish versions French versions etc for those people to hear the message ...

Any Bible translated by professionals in a secure way with integrity for the process of revisions is a good thing and probably speaks well to some folks as they personally seek the lord

Ita sort of a rabbit hole. In my view a d another reason for people to argue a out scripture yet really who's to say which version is the " best " ? I can. Believe a certain. Version is the best but ...... how am I ever going to prove that to anyone else ? I'm basing what I know on what others have said either way in the end
Would you mind proofreading your posts and correcting typos and misspellings before you post it. This post is atrocious. If English is not your native language, use the Google Translator and have an English friend read your post before you post it. That person can refine it to be accurate. An occasional typo or misspelling is to be expected, but this post is to difficult to read and comprehend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthDefender
Just some brief thoughts on your post.

My text is the Greek New Testament United Bible Society, I don't bother with English Translations that much.
The UBS Greek and the Nestle-Aland 28 are actually the same underlying critical text, unified since the UBS 3rd edition and NA26. So you are essentially reading from the same Westcott-Hort lineage that relies heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which has many problems not only doctrinally but on basic record of Bible facts or history, as well.

Anyway, Unitarians, liberals, and Catholics helped shaped the text you favor.
This is all demonstrable by looking to history on your own with sources.

The upcoming OT Critical Text, which is the BHQ, was worked on by a Mormon.


Using the KJV is not a bad thing, but you need to be studying from a Greek Text, even if it is the TR.
You are preaching to the choir. I am a strong proponent for reading and studying words in both the KJV and its underlying original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. In fact, I have a PDF on my website encouraging KJV English only Christians to learn the original languages or at bare minimum do word studies (See: www.affectionsabove.com). For the New Testament of the KJV, this the Beza 1598 Greek primarily (except for 25 translatable differences that I catalogued). This is available for free online at Archive.org and easy to find with a basic Google search. For the Hebrew and Aramaic, this would be the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew that is more easily accessed with a program called, Sword Searcher.


There was a Greek Bible during the Reformation thanks to Erasmus. But, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts today.
Actually, in reality, the majority of manuscripts supports the KJV or the Textus Receptus more than the Alexandrian manuscripts used for the UBS/Nestle Aland Greek (Which prioritizes heavily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in it's main readings among a spattering of a few others).

This is the lie or deception that is promoted in the Modern Bible Movement today. They say they have an embarrassment of riches, but those riches actually support the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible (although the Byzantine manuscripts are not always an exact match to the TR).


The Modern Bible Movement (I have never heard of this) recognizes that as more and more Greek manuscripts are discovered, we are able to be more precise with the text.
First time for everything. Westcott and Hort started the movement you are in and it is Modern movement in comparison to the traditional or received text, which is far superior in doctrine, truth, etcetera. I have a PDF that shows both translation differences and textual differences. For the textual differences: I compare Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (Modern Bibles) against the Beza 1598 (KJV). It's the PDF with the animated fall leaves in the background on my website, affectionsabove.com.


For example, Jesus was the only begotten of God, but with more manuscripts having been discovered we now know that the actually translation of this phrase is "The only, unique son."
The Critical Text has monogenes just like the Received Text. So it's not a different Greek word from any new manuscripts, unless you just got something hot off the press with some new or rare discovery or something. Actually, from my experience this is one of the 17 words that are changed in Modern Lexicons after German Rationalism kicked in the 1700s. This is why I prefer looking to pre-1700s lexicons like Buxtorf, Stephanus, etc.; Anyway, monogenes never meant historically as a reference to unique or one of a kind or one and only outside of the idea of begotten when referring to human beings. If you disagree, you would need to find an older non-biblical Greek source like at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ or by finding some early church writer, etcetera to prove your case that it can have this oddball meaning. It's only the Modernists who did not even believe in traditional Protestant teachings that changed such words.

Name three and be specific!
002 Deceptions.png

From my PDF that is still a work in progress that is not released yet.
Keep in mind that this will be sourced with actual sources. So some of this may be re-worded and changed slightly.

Speaking of errors/variants in the Bible. There are over 500,000 variants/errors among the Greek manuscripts.
If God's word had errors in it, then there would be no reason to trust it.
That would suggest God makes mistakes in His promises and that is just not possible.

For example, how does this verse even hold true for you?

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140).

What about this one?

"That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?" (Proverbs 22:21).

Keep in mind that both of these verses are coincidentally changed to fit the belief of the Modernist view of the Bible who thinks that the Bible has errors and it is only cardinal doctrines, ideas, and general story concepts are preserved and not the actual words.

I mean, seriously, I have catalogued 18 ideas that fit the very belief you hold to that is found in your Modern Bibles. I list this in my 77 changed doctrines in Modern Bibles PDF. However, keep in mind that this PDF needs to be heavily updated to match the original languages, though. Just check it out at my website.

You sound like a newbie to Christianity, so I won't embarrass you.
I could say the same for you.

Do you even know what Interpretatio Romana is?

Do you know about the sacred name of God?

Do you know about the deeper Hebrew meaning underlying "hasteneth not" in the KJV concerning Behemoth in Job?

I accepted Christ in 1992 through a tract called This Was Your Life. Since that time, I have spent years studying Scripture and examining doctrine.

I have fought countless battles against Calvinism, OSAS (or the belief that one can live in sin and still be saved), Mid Acts (MAD), and baptismal salvation. I have defended the faith concerning New Testament Non-Violence, the differences between the types of wine in Scripture, and many other doctrinal issues over the years.

I have discussed a wide array of topics, with 41,726 posts on one Christian forum alone before discussion on the TR/KJV topic was banned there.

Most people simply have not gone as deep into various doctrines and subjects over the years as I have. I have dedicated decades to studying these matters.

At present, I have compiled 177 Reasons for the KJB, with 77 of them being doctrinal reasons. Of course, there are even more doctrinal concerns I could address, but I also have other projects in life that I desire to do for the Lord.


But I worked for the guy you mention below (Dan Wallace) and he is a devout Christian whose life has influenced tens of thousands of students and readers. He personally sent me to Greece to seek out Greek manuscripts. He is without a doubt a genius; I can testify to that personally. You, my friend, are clueless as to the science of Textual Criticism.
You can watch the last 15 minutes of the John Ankerberg show to see him make the horrible blunder that the Westcott and Hort Revised Version is based on 2,000 manuscripts (Which everyone knows today is not true). He has never recanted this false statement to my knowledge. Also, there are problems with Wallace, which you can check out here: https://brandplucked.com/danwallacenut.htm (Note: I do not agree with all of Will Kinney's beliefs).


The CT is the Greek NT that would be what you call a true text. It technically has about 103% of the Original Autographs. Dan said the goal of TC today is to remove the dross and bring it nearer to the Original Autographs. The KJV was composed by only 6 or 7 Greek manuscripts and not one of these was earlier than the 9th century. Also, unfortunately all these manuscripts for the KJV did not contain much of the last chapter of Revelation. So, they back translated from a Latin manuscript into Greek. In other words, the KJV is a very late Version, about 900 years after the Autographs. d
You have to stop listening to these people. Sure, they may get some things right, but they also have a job to protect.
The Modern Bible Movement is a billion dollar juggernaut of an industry.
Do your own independent research and be a good detective.
Look at both sides of the two major Bible lines in history.
There is the TR/KJV Bible line and its good fruit.
And there is the Modern Bible Movement Bible Line and its corrupt and bad fruit.



.....