Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Many scholars believe the Pure Cambridge to be the standard.

Really? Who? What is a Pure Cambridge?

 

[Winman]

Once again you are either lying or are abysmally ignorant. The KJV NT translation committees used the Bishop's Bible as their base text and compared it to the 1598 TR of Stephens. The Bishop's Bible was based on Tyndale's Bible which was based on the 1525 TR of Erasmus.

You say they were destroyed. That is simply untrue.

I have a 1525 Erasmus TR
I have a 1598 Stephens TR.
I have a Tyndale Bible.
I have a Bishop's Bible.

So, again, you are either lying or you are so ignorant you just make this stuff up as you go along. Whichever it is it is a disgrace to the Name of Christ. Shame on you! The Lord rebuke you!

What a coincidence that those who support the MVs are so quick to display such un-Christian behavior as calling people liars. I have had several of you call me a liar now.

I did not lie, and I will show that. I am no scholar on these matters, nor do I aspire to be. But I have always understood that the notes the translators used which would show the exact texts they used were destroyed in a fire, so we do not know exactly what texts they used, though it is certain they used many of the sources you quoted. However, there are also deviations from all known texts.

This lends the question, “which Greek text is correct?” The ready answer is, “The Textus Receptus, of course!” Yes, but which of the 38 versions of it? “The one the King James Bible was translated from!” Wrong. The King James Bible was not translated from any one edition of the Textus Receptus, but from all available manuscripts as well as heavy reliance on Syrian editions. The edition of the Textus Receptus used today by the majority of King James Bible-believing colleges and seminaries was produced in 1633 - after the King James Bible (1611). It was actually produced from the King James Bible. Not only that, but a fire destroyed all the notes of the King James Bible translators shortly after the work was completed, so we are left with almost nothing as to which texts they actually translated from but pure guesswork.

So, as you see, I did not lie and I am not ignorant. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

 

[jbh28]

I am not a scholar, so I do not know exactly which texts the KJB translators used. People say they used the TR, but that is a general statement, because we know they deviated some from this text. The problem is, the texts they used were destroyed.

Yes, what most everything they used(if not all) was destroyed. They used texts that were in the TR family. The current TR didn't come out till 1884 and there was nothing called TR till 1633.

Now, you may disagree here, but I believe that happened for a reason. We are to believe God by faith, not scholarship.

correct, which is why I reject king james onlyism because it is not of faith.

Another thing I have said repeatedly to you and others and you WILL NOT get, is that I simply believe what God said. I believe him when he said he would preserve his pure (without corruption or error) word.

So, are you advocating that we have a perfect line from the original writers of Scripture to the KJV? could you share with us where we could find this line? I do beleive that the WORDS will be preserved. I don't believe that copyist and translators were kept from error. Just because a copy is incorrect or a translation is incorrect, doesn't make the Word of God corrupt. Of course you don't think so either because you would have to say the Word was corrupt prior to the KJV.

I cannot explain how God preserved his word, and I really don't worry about it, I simply believe it.

You add to what God said by saying it is in one translation.

Yes, the KJB translators did not claim to be holy prophets. They were simply sincere, humble men who did the very best they could to accurately translate the Greek and Aramaic texts they had. There is no way they would claim that they were inspired like the prophets.

Because they were not. The writers of Scripture claimed it on some occasions because it was true. The translators of Scripture are not writing though inspiration. That would be false teaching.

But I believe that God was directing them. I believe God was directing the men who came before them and were willing to give their lives to publish the scriptures in the language of the common people so that all men could learn of God, and not be controlled by the priesthood.

I'm sure God was helping them just like he helped the NIV translation team and the NASB translation team and the NKJV... He wasn't keeping them from error. That wold be false teaching.

So, I cannot explain it. And no one can go back 500 years and learn all the details of that time. But I believe God was directing men at that time and bringing his Word to the common man.

That would be false teaching to say that God was keeping the translators of the English from error. you have 0 Bible to support this. So if it is faith, you might want to check to see what this faith is in.

There is much documentation for this, if you are sincerely interested, you can look it up. I get the impression you really are not interested in any view that opposes what you have already decided to believe.

I'm not saying there were not typographical errors(there were) but not all were. I get the impression you really are not interested in any view that opposes what you have already decided to believe. That would be more correct for you. I have studied this issue out and compared it with the Bible. I don't teach things(like kjv onlyism) that are not taught in the Bible. I teach only the Bible.

There were textual errors in the KJB. Sometimes a publisher would accidently add or delete a word in the text. They might write "the sheep" when the text said simply "sheep". These things happen, the bible is a massive work. Sometimes they would make a typo like writing "she" instead of "he". So, that one letter mistake becomes a textual error. That kind of mistake is easy to make.

And sometimes when they were rewriting the scriptures to correct discovered errors they accidently introduced new errors. There have been famous bibles like the Murderers Bible.

Again, I'm sure some were, but you can't say all of them were. And if they were being guided, why didn't God keep them from typo errors? That's why double inspiration(God guiding the kjv translators to correct translation) is false teaching.

Many scholars believe the Pure Cambridge to be the standard.

Cambridge is the KJV. What can we compare the KJV to as the standard. Can't compare with itself to see if it is right.

you said "Because there was an infallible standard, these mistakes were spotted and corrected. You just can't grasp this can you.

What was this infallible standard they compared the KJV to to correct the errors. I'm assuming the Cambridge is what you think is this corrected version, so what did they compare it to, to see that the Cambridge was correct?

I will not comment on Riplinger, I know almost nothing about her and her writings at all.

Good, and stay away from here. She gives kjvo's a bad name. As I have said before, there are good reasons to be kjvo. I only comment on the bad ones. Riplinger's are the bad ones.

Well, as I said before, I cannot absolutely say because they were destroyed. It is certain that the TR was used for the bulk of the text.

We have other copies of what they used. They didn't use just one text(which I believe you agree) which means there wasn't a perfect text they went by. So, that being true, was the Bible corrupt? Of course not! But according to what you have been advocating, it was.

I cannot follow what you are saying here. But if you think the difference between the CT and the TR is small and insignificant, I couldn't disagree with you more. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the TR. Either the CT deleted a multitude of words, or the TR added a multitude of words. This is no small or insignificant number, I am amazed you could say such a thing.

You are comparing numbers between texts. What I said was the the differences don't change any doctrine. No doctrine rests on any textual variant. Personally, I think there are places where the TR has added words and the CT has added words and places where the TR has missing words and the CT has missing words. I don't see either text as perfect. I personally believe the CT is closer, but if you disagree, not a problem. No doctrine will be changed.

 

[jbh28]

What a coincidence that those who support the MVs are so quick to display such un-Christian behavior as calling people liars. I have had several of you call me a liar now.

I did not lie, and I will show that. I am no scholar on these matters, nor do I aspire to be. But I have always understood that the notes the translators used which would show the exact texts they used were destroyed in a fire, so we do not know exactly what texts they used, though it is certain they used many of the sources you quoted. However, there are also deviations from all known texts.



So, as you see, I did not lie and I am not ignorant. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

What's the source of your quote. I've seen it before but don't remember where. Also, I only called you a liar before because you grossly misrepresented me when I clearly defined my position. I didn't recant that when you said you misunderstood my view.

However, we don't have THEIR COPIES, but we do have a pretty good idea of what they used based on what was available at the time. It would be like you kjv being destroyed. I have a copy of the KJV too.

 

[Winman]

So, are you advocating that we have a perfect line from the original writers of Scripture to the KJV? could you share with us where we could find this line? I do beleive that the WORDS will be preserved. I don't believe that copyist and translators were kept from error. Just because a copy is incorrect or a translation is incorrect, doesn't make the Word of God corrupt. Of course you don't think so either because you would have to say the Word was corrupt prior to the KJV.

I have seen you several times say you believe the words will be preserved. What does that mean?

And when you say because a copy or translation is incorrect, that doesn't mean God's word is corrupt. That is true, but how in the world is a person to know where God's Word ends, and man's word starts?

So, if I understand you and some of the other MVs, you believe God's word is preserved, but it is all mixed up with man's word. That would be a very dangerous bible indeed.

And I don't consider that preserved. If I preserve some apple jam and open the jar and it is all full of mold and contamination, I hardly consider that preserved, but perhaps you do.

I don't believe as you. I believe God actually preserved his pure word like he promised to do. I cannot explain how he did it and how it came about, but I believe he did it nonetheless. I don't believe like you that God's word is all mixed up with man's word, at least not in the KJB.

And in one post you said you didn't care about word order if I recall correctly. You can't possibly mean this.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

What would this verse say if you simply swapped the word order of destroy and save? It would say:

For the Son of main is not come to save men's lives, but to destroy them. And they went to another village.

So, this is incredibly false, word order is extremely important.

And here is the source of that quote, although I have seen much more detailed information on this and am trying to find it.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/kingjamesbible.html

 

[jbh28]

I have seen you several times say you believe the words will be preserved. What does that mean?

And when you say because a copy or translation is incorrect, that doesn't mean God's word is corrupt. That is true, but how in the world is a person to know where God's Word ends, and man's word starts?

The same way they did before the KJV came about.

So, if I understand you and some of the other MVs, you believe God's word is preserved, but it is all mixed up with man's word. That would be a very dangerous bible indeed.

It's preserved just like it was before the KJV. Think about that for a while.

And I don't consider that preserved. If I preserve some apple jam and open the jar and it is all full of mold and contamination, I hardly consider that preserved, but perhaps you do.

So the Bible wasn't preserved before the KJV? So I guess the KJV was more of a resurrection than a preservation seeing as it was not preserved prior. Unless you do really consider that preserved.

I don't believe as you. I believe God actually preserved his pure word like he promised to do. I cannot explain how he did it and how it came about, but I believe he did it nonetheless. I don't believe like you that God's word is all mixed up with man's word, at least not in the KJB.

You say how by saying it is in one version. But what about before the KJV? hmmmm???

And in one post you said you didn't care about word order if I recall correctly. You can't possibly mean this.

In English, no word order isn't inspired. All translations(including the KJV) changes the order of words in translating. Now if you are referring to the original languages, I don't mean it isn't important, but that doctrinally, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus doesn't change.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

What would this verse say if you simply swapped the word order of destroy and save? It would say:

For the Son of main is not come to save men's lives, but to destroy them. And they went to another village.

So, this is incredibly false, word order is extremely important.

Again, you misrepresent me. Why don't you ask before you make comments as such. I never said word order wasn't ever important. And you know I didn't. Read what I said in context and don't misuse my comments. I never said word order was never important.

And here is the source of that quote, although I have seen much more detailed information on this and am trying to find it.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/kingjamesbible.html

Oh, the false teacher of Steven Anderson. I hope you pee standing up!

Again, we do know what they used by knowing what was available at the time. Their particulars were destroyed, but we can look at the KJV and tell what was being used. Not one particular text was used(showing that not one text was pure and perfect)

btw, Steven Anderson is a nut. Be careful what you read of his. He believes in this easy believe-ism and I'm afraid many think they are saved because they prayed some magic words without sincerely meaning it and therefore thinking they are saved when they are not. Its sad he has about 20 people in his church but claims to have saved thousands. Where are all these people, or did he abandoned them after he got his "number"?

I hope you notice that I haven't advocated you to read the KJV. In fact I have said you being KJVO was fine(shocked, I know ) but there are some good reasons to be kjvo. I just caution you to stay away from the bad ones. Anderson has plenty of bad ones.

 

[God's_Servant]

I have seen you several times say you believe the words will be preserved. What does that mean?

And when you say because a copy or translation is incorrect, that doesn't mean God's word is corrupt. That is true, but how in the world is a person to know where God's Word ends, and man's word starts?

So, if I understand you and some of the other MVs, you believe God's word is preserved, but it is all mixed up with man's word. That would be a very dangerous bible indeed.

And I don't consider that preserved. If I preserve some apple jam and open the jar and it is all full of mold and contamination, I hardly consider that preserved, but perhaps you do.

I don't believe as you. I believe God actually preserved his pure word like he promised to do. I cannot explain how he did it and how it came about, but I believe he did it nonetheless. I don't believe like you that God's word is all mixed up with man's word, at least not in the KJB.

And in one post you said you didn't care about word order if I recall correctly. You can't possibly mean this.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy What would this verse say if you simply swapped the word order of destroy and save? It would say:

For the Son of main is not come to save men's lives, but to destroy them. And they went to another village.

So, this is incredibly false, word order is extremely important.men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



And here is the source of that quote, although I have seen much more detailed information on this and am trying to find it.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/kingjamesbible.html

If I am correct, Greek, like Latin, does not require words to be in a specific order as English does. (if I am misinformed, by all means correct me)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Many scholars believe the Pure Cambridge to be the standard.

Really? Who? What is a Pure Cambridge?

Maybe you missed this WM? (or maybe I am on his ignore list )

 

[Winman]

The same way they did before the KJV came about.

You should run for politics, you aren't saying anything here. How did they do it before the KJB? Please explain.

It's preserved just like it was before the KJV. Think about that for a while.

Another non-answer that says nothing at all. You make all sorts of vague statements that nobody could possibly understand. Why don't you explain so people can know what you are really saying?

So the Bible wasn't preserved before the KJV? So I guess the KJV was more of a resurrection than a preservation seeing as it was not preserved prior. Unless you do really consider that preserved.

Of course it was preserved, how could they translate something that didn't exist? However, it was not preserved in one volume, the translators looked at as many texts possible to put it together. I am not the one to explain it to you, but there are many good books on the texts that the KJB had available, and how they decided which was scripture and which was not and how they weeded out error.

You say how by saying it is in one version. But what about before the KJV? hmmmm???

It is obvious that no matter what anyone (especially me) tells you, you have already made your mind up. This is really a big waste of time.

You don't get it, and this time it is correct to say you don't understand it. God promised to preserve his word. Now, you either believe that or you don't. I believe God did preserve his word. I can't explain how he did it, yet I believe he did it.

You on the other hand will not accept anything on faith. You want some scholarly answer for everything. You trust in man's wisdom. Well, you are never going to find an answer, because many scholarly men will write books supporting the KJB, and an equal number will write scholarly books against it. I can tell you right now you will never find an answer to this question by studying books written by man. If you want to spin your wheels and waste your time, that is up to you. But I get the impression that the real problem is that you simply do not believe God preserved his pure word as he promised to do. His promise is not good enough for you, you do not want to live by faith, you want scholarly proof. Good luck on that.

 

[rbell]

And here is the source of that quote, although I have seen much more detailed information on this and am trying to find it.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/kingjamesbible.html

Oh, this gets better by the minute! Now you're quoting Sanderson...a banned BB member, who outright says, "I worship the King James Bible."

Nice job. You're quoting heretics. You might want to pick sources with at least a thread of credibility.

 

[Winman]

Oh, this gets better by the minute! Now you're quoting Sanderson...a banned BB member, who outright says, "I worship the King James Bible."

Nice job. You're quoting heretics. You might want to pick sources with at least a thread of credibility.

I quoted him because that is all I could find at present on those notes being destroyed by fire. I do not know anything about Sanderson, but he did not make this up, it is historical record. I have even seen others here speak of it before.

I will keep searching, and when I find a different source I will post it. Of course, that does not guarantee you will accept it, I get the strong impression that you will not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have, apparently inadvertently, supported my position. The fact that pre 4th century distinctively Byzantine readings exist at all proves that the Byzantine textform is not a late, derivative textform. And, when that became patently obvious the Alexandrian textform apologists invented the so-called "block mixture" theory, which also flies in the face of proven facts.

Let’s face it. The evidence supports the existence of distinctly Byzantine readings prior to the 4th century.

Also, I am not the spelling/grammar police, but I would tend to give more credence to your arguments if you spelled Chrysostom and Westcott correctly.

Actually I haven't. Maybe earlier than the regular view 7th Century. But Remember in the 4th Century we only have partial agreement and liturgical use was in practice. You can see a development when the empire moved back east and Byzantine use became practiced. Your position of prior to 4th Century is still speculation and unsubstantiated.

 

[TCassidy]

What a coincidence that those who support the MVs are so quick to display such un-Christian behavior as calling people liars.

Again, you display a lack of truthfulness. I don't support the so-called "modern versions."

So, as you see, I did not lie and I am not ignorant. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

I don't know who you were quoting but whoever it was is as wrong as you. If you would do a little research instead of just cutting and pasting from KJVO web pages you would know that Dr. Ward Allen published "Translating For King James" which are photographic copies of the copious notes produced by John Bois, secretary to the translation committees. The notes were published back in 1969 by Vanderbilt University Press. So, once again you have proven yourself to be either a liar or completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

 

[TCassidy]

Actually I haven't. Maybe earlier than the regular view 7th Century. But Remember in the 4th Century we only have partial agreement and liturgical use was in practice. You can see a development when the empire moved back east and Byzantine use became practiced. Your position of prior to 4th Century is still speculation and unsubstantiated.

I can only suggest you read Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), paying close attention to pages 137-230 where he identifies 150 distinctively Byzantine readings dating prior to the mid 4th century.

I might also suggest you read my good friend Maurice Robinson’s “A Case for Byzantine Priority” and “Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform” by Dr. Robinson and the late William Pierpont.

 

[Winman]

Again, you display a lack of truthfulness. I don't support the so-called "modern versions."I don't know who you were quoting but whoever it was is as wrong as you. If you would do a little research instead of just cutting and pasting from KJVO web pages you would know that Dr. Ward Allen published "Translating For King James" which are photographic copies of the copious notes produced by John Bois, secretary to the translation committees. The notes were published back in 1969 by Vanderbilt University Press. So, once again you have proven yourself to be either a liar or completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

I am glad you do not support the modern versions. But you have a real problem calling people liars don't you?

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Jesus said that a man speaks that which is in his heart. Maybe you should think about that before you go around calling people liars.

By the way, thank you for the information, however, that is a copy of only one of the translators notes.

And as far as copying and pasting, we all rely on other sources at times, including yourself.

 

[Winman]

OK, I think I have found some information on the fire that destroyed the original texts.

Finally, those who claim to have “the final authority” in their hands in the form of the KJV while at the same time denying the finality of the authority of extant Hebrew and Greek texts, display defective knowledge of the facts in the case. No one today has the original KJV, even if they own one of the copies actually printed in 1611. Those printed editions are merely copies--and defective ones at that--of the translators’ original manuscript which was submitted to the printers in 1611. The fact is, the translators’ original manuscript of the KJV is now lost, apparently a victim of the great London fire of 1666. Its existence was attested as late as 1660, but thereafter, it entirely disappears from historical records (see T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, compilers, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. 1, p. 134; John M’Clintock, and James Strong, eds., Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. I, p. 562). If these facts are so, then no one has seen or held what is allegedly “the final authority in English” for approaching 350 years! At best, all they have are imperfect copies of a now lost “original,” leaving KJVO adherents in precisely the same boat as those who appeal to the original language Biblical texts as their final authority.

Now, this fellow is absolutely anti-KJB, but what he says does not bother me in the least. I have said and will always say that this issue cannot be settled through scholarship. Eventually you will have to come to the realization that a person must believe God preserved the scriptures by faith. There is no way to prove it though scholarship.

And now, those who have called me a liar can see that I am not.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is obvious that no matter what anyone (especially me) tells you, you have already made your mind up. This is really a big waste of time.

You don't get it, and this time it is correct to say you don't understand it. God promised to preserve his word. Now, you either believe that or you don't. I believe God did preserve his word. I can't explain how he did it, yet I believe he did it.

You on the other hand will not accept anything on faith. You want some scholarly answer for everything. You trust in man's wisdom. Well, you are never going to find an answer, because many scholarly men will write books supporting the KJB, and an equal number will write scholarly books against it. I can tell you right now you will never find an answer to this question by studying books written by man. If you want to spin your wheels and waste your time, that is up to you. But I get the impression that the real problem is that you simply do not believe God preserved his pure word as he promised to do. His promise is not good enough for you, you do not want to live by faith, you want scholarly proof. Good luck on that.

"Faith" based in ignorance is not faith. I won't call you a liar, but you have been deceived by false teachers.

I daresay that you ALSO trust in "man's wisdom". No one that is an honest man can say that he found the doctrine of KJVO in his Bible. It's not there. You can twist the Scriptures to make it appear so, but it's not there.

I have a great deal of respect for men like Dr. Cassidy and Dr. Bob, who have more knowledge than I do on this subject and whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. May I suggest that we all take a lesson from their example- first of all even if they are not 100% in agreement on Bible versions, they still manage to get along and be civil- and second, they STUDY the issue for themselves rather than pasting quotes from ignoramuses who quote ignoramuses, who quote... well, I hope you get the idea.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Now, this fellow is absolutely anti-KJB, but what he says does not bother me in the least.

You don't understand: He's not "anti-KJB". No one here on the BB is "anti-KJB"- at least no one I know is. (I used the KJV in my sermon today and no one batted an eyelash. I also used the ESV and the NIRV. God's not limited to using just ONE version.)

Many of us ARE "anti-KJVO"- a false doctrine that divides churches, destroys missions, and damns people to hell based on their choice of bible version.

 

[Winman]

You don't understand: He's not "anti-KJB". No one here on the BB is "anti-KJB"- at least no one I know is. (I used the KJV in my sermon today and no one batted an eyelash. I also used the ESV and the NIRV. God's not limited to using just ONE version.)

Many of us ARE "anti-KJVO"- a false doctrine that divides churches, destroys missions, and damns people to hell based on their choice of bible version.

Well, you could sure fool me. So what if people like myself believe that the KJB is the preserved word of God? I have been called an idolator and a heretic. I haven't said anything like that about those who choose to believe in many various versions, although I will say I disagree with you.

If folks just said they disagreed with myself and others, that would be one thing. But when people spew poisonous hatred it absolutely comes across as hatred toward the KJB.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, you could sure fool me. So what if people like myself believe that the KJB is the preserved word of God? I have been called an idolator and a heretic. I haven't said anything like that about those who choose to believe in many various versions, although I will say I disagree with you.

If folks just said they disagreed with myself and others, that would be one thing. But when people spew poisonous hatred it absolutely comes across as hatred toward the KJB.

I would say that you're easy to fool, but I won't. :smilewinkgrin:

Poisonous hatred towards the doctrine of KJVO ≠ hatred to the KJV. Say it to yourself a few times and it should start to take hold.

YOU are the one demanding the extra-Biblical requirement:

So as I have been saying for months, eventually you will be forced to decide by faith in God's promise. He promised to preserve his pure and perfect word, so one of the versions has to be it.

Now you just need to make a choice.