Questions for those holding to KJVO Position

[37818]

No, I don't believe God "changed" His Word, at least not after the fact. Like some of the OT quotations in the NT aren't one-for-one like the Hebrew, so He "changed" or "repurposed" OT passages to fit a particular thing in the NT. That, however, is not the same as what you seem to think I've said.

I am of the persuasion the NT OT quotes are the original OT.

I don't know exactly when. I will be the first to admit I simply do not have that much experience discussing this particular variant. However, after I get a better grasp on Hebrew, I want to move on to learning Greek, which should allow me to examine manuscripts. Maybe then I'll be able to figure out the answer to your question!

What turns out is the text between NT variants are always the same as the Byzantine!

The differences are worth discussing.

 

[Ben1445]

I am of the persuasion the NT OT quotes are the original OT.

?? The original OT in Greek?
Does that make the kjv the original OT and NT in English?

What exactly do you mean?

What turns out is the text between NT variants are always the same as the Byzantine!

The Byzantine is the missing link?
The Byzantine is the same as the other texts that are different in comparison to each other?
What do you mean here also?

The differences are worth discussing.

 

[37818]

I will ask you the same question.
If it was not added, when was it omitted?

Yep. Two questions I ask. Also which is oldest, which is the more common reading. Also whys.

The texts between variants is of course the more common text.

The text dating, goes to what is understood about manuscript writing their believed history. We pretty much have to believe the experts.

How we know comes before what we know. And why we believe comes before believing.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

I am of the persuasion the NT OT quotes are the original OT.

Well, that simply cannot be so since the OT and NT differ in exact wording. The Hebrew text God preserved has to be through the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), specifically the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), and would be in the original Hebrew/Aramaic (Matthew 5:18).

As such, the Masoretic Text is the correct OT. Therefore, the NT differs from the Masoretic Text only when God desired to make a different point by alluding to a passage without a verbatim quote.

Yep. Two questions I ask. Also which is oldest, which is the more common reading. Also whys.

The texts between variants is of course the more common text.

The text dating, goes to what is understood about manuscript writing their believed history. We pretty much have to believe the experts.

How we know comes before what we know. And why we believe comes before believing.

2 Corinthians 2:17 "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."

If we found one of these copies that Paul mentions here, it would be one of the oldest NT manuscripts ever found...and it would be corrupted. Age hardly ever plays a genuine part in discussion of particular readings.

 

[Conan]

Well, that simply cannot be so since the OT and NT differ in exact wording. The Hebrew text God preserved has to be through the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), specifically the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), and would be in the original Hebrew/Aramaic (Matthew 5:18).

As such, the Masoretic Text is the correct OT. Therefore, the NT differs from the Masoretic Text only when God desired to make a different point by alluding to a passage without a verbatim quote.


2 Corinthians 2:17 "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."

If we found one of these copies that Paul mentions here, it would be one of the oldest NT manuscripts ever found...and it would be corrupted. Age hardly ever plays a genuine part in discussion of particular readings.

When a New Testament Author quotes the Old Testament he usually quotes it in a different form that has came down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament quotation of the Old is the correct reading. Paul did not get it wrong. Jesus did not get it wrong. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not get it wrong. The Masoretic Text did.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

When a New Testament Author quotes the Old Testament he usually quotes it in a different form that has came down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament quotation of the Old is the correct reading. Paul did not get it wrong. Jesus did not get it wrong. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not get it wrong. The Masoretic Text did.

Notice, I never said Jesus, Paul, or the Gospel writers were wrong (though I will say we don't know who actually wrote the Gospels, but that's beside the point). The Masoretic Text is the preserved text, based upon what the Scriptures themselves say about preservation. And God, being the author of Scripture, has authority to quote it however He desires, even if that is to slightly modify it.

 

[Conan]

The fact is, there is evidence to support the KJV/TR reading, even if you don't want to admit it. You don't seem intent on actually discussing, so if you don't want to have a discussion worth having, then I will see myself out.

God never said His preserved Word would only be in Greek Codexes. He can preserve His Word any way He sees fit.

says the Lord God. Sinaiticus A C P 046 91 93 469 792 911 922 1006 1424 1611 1678 1734 1828 1841 1854 1888 2053 2062 2065 270 2080 2081 2351 2814 2846 it/h vg syr cop arm-m geo arab-e,w Ath MarcD Epiph EustA Prim TR-cp, ben, Ste/mg An HF BG RP SBL TH ECM NA28

says the Lord it/ar eth arm-c TR

 

[Conan]

Notice, I never said Jesus, Paul, or the Gospel writers were wrong (though I will say we don't know who actually wrote the Gospels, but that's beside the point).

Fair enough.

The Masoretic Text is the preserved text, based upon what the Scriptures themselves say about preservation. And God, being the author of Scripture, has authority to quote it however He desires, even if that is to slightly modify it.

And now you are saying different. The New Testament Authors quote an Old Testament that is sometimes different than the one that has come down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament Authors usually quote from the Septuagint or a Hebrew manuscript more like the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text. These are plain facts.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Fair enough.


And now you are saying different. The New Testament Authors quote an Old Testament that is sometimes different than the one that has come down to us in the Masoretic Text. The New Testament Authors usually quote from the Septuagint or a Hebrew manuscript more like the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text. These are plain facts.

My view of inspiration doesn't allow for them to have used a single external source, only what God told them did they write. I find it most probable that the Septuagint was modified later to conform to the NT rather than the NT reflecting a supposed Septuagint.

Again, Christ promised that no jot or tittle would be lost (Matthew 5:18), which is Hebrew/Aramaic. That already throws the LXX out wherever it doesn't agree with the Hebrew.

 

[Conan]

My view of inspiration doesn't allow for them to have used a single external source, only what God told them did they write. I find it most probable that the Septuagint was modified later to conform to the NT rather than the NT reflecting a supposed Septuagint.

Again, Christ promised that no jot or tittle would be lost (Matthew 5:18), which is Hebrew/Aramaic. That already throws the LXX out wherever it doesn't agree with the Hebrew.

The Septuagint is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible in the 3rd century BC. You can read about it in the 1611 KJV Preface under the section called
The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek The Translators to the Reader

Many times the NT quotes directly from the Septuagint. Sometimes the NT quotes from the Masoretic Text. Sometimes it quites an OT different than both. The Dead Sea Scrolls have found some Hebrew Scrolls which are similar the the ones used by the Septuagint Translators. Also some that have been used for the later Masoretic Text. Others are independent Old Testament Manuscripts that follow neither exactly.

From the KJV Translators under the section called An Answer to the Imputations of Our Adversaries

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God

 

[37818]

Well, that simply cannot be so since the OT and NT differ in exact wording.

Then that is effectively a denial of Biblical inerrancy.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The Septuagint is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible in the 3rd century BC. You can read about it in the 1611 KJV Preface under the section called
The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek The Translators to the Reader

Many times the NT quotes directly from the Septuagint. Sometimes the NT quotes from the Masoretic Text. Sometimes it quites an OT different than both. The Dead Sea Scrolls have found some Hebrew Scrolls which are similar the the ones used by the Septuagint Translators. Also some that have been used for the later Masoretic Text. Others are independent Old Testament Manuscripts that follow neither exactly.

From the KJV Translators under the section called An Answer to the Imputations of Our Adversaries

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God

The KJV translators were off in their historical accounts. I do not believe that the LXX originally contained the entire OT, but rather that it was a gradual process. And then later people took the NT and inserted it into the OT, which is where we get the LXX we know today. I'm not aware of any LXX manuscripts in the DSS that are not either Torah or Apocrypha (that's presuming that it originally had the Apocrypha as well).

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Then that is effectively a denial of Biblical inerrancy.

It's not. God made no errors. He can quote His own Word however He likes, and He can reinspire it in the next Testament in a different way than before. He is God.

 

[37818]

It's not. God made no errors. He can quote His own Word however He likes, and He can reinspire it in the next Testament in a different way than before. He is God.

This sounds like you deny the immutability of God. Please give an undeniable case example of your claim.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

This sounds like you deny the immutability of God. Please give an undeniable case example of your claim.

I do not deny such. Scripture says that God changes not—"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

To claim God changed His Word when quoting/alluding to it later is not the same as claiming God changed. The basis for my statements are that God promised the preservation of the OT in Hebrew/Aramaic (Matthew 5:18). It is also said that the OT was committed to the Jewish people (Romans 3:1-2), therefore they are the ones preserving it.

Based on this, we must conclude that when there's a minor change (e.g., "a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5) from Psalm 40:6), it is (as one person put it) "complimentary paraphrasing," not a verbatim quotation.

 

[37818]

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

This only beginning after His bodily resurrection and ascension.

Based on this, we must conclude that when there's a minor change (e.g., "a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5) from Psalm 40:6), it is (as one person put it) "complimentary paraphrasing," not a verbatim quotation.

The NT OT quote is the original reading.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The NT OT quote is the original reading.

That's an assumption that flies in the face of the clear preservation language that Scripture uses to tell us who and where the OT would be kept. Please address Matthew 5:18, Romans 3:1-2, and the fact that Paul considered himself a Pharisee even as a Christian. Because all the biblical evidence points to the Jews (the Pharisees) being God's tool in preserving the law.

 

[JesusFan]

the apocrypha is rejected by most. because of the contradictions they cause.. Not because they are catholic. Catholics need to stop thinking so highly of themselves. the whole world does not reject things just because the catholic church may believe it..

Their rejected due to teaching things not found in the 66 canonized books of the bible, as Rome had to accept them in order to get soem of their doctrines such as prayers for the dead

 

[JesusFan]

That would require there to be errors in the KJV. However, there aren't any, and no one has actually been able to provide one. Simply all the "errors" are either 1) not errors or 2) are actually superior translations.

how do you account for the hundreds of differences between the 1611 and 1769, and between them and the 1873 then?

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree with the framing of the question. I believe immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, but the KJV simply uses a transliteration. I'm glad it did, because as Anglicans, the KJV translators likely wouldn't have translated it as immersion.

Now, because it's a transliteration, the real question is not "What does the KJV support?" but instead, "What does the word being transliterated mean?" And of course, the Greek means to immerse.

Why do you allow those who were part of the Anglican/Church of England be the sole arbitrators as to which variant and which rendering was to be the proper and correct one every time than?