the easy answer to which bible is the real one

Palmer's text, like Scrivener's text, was compiled after the fact to give the source of textual variants from the Textus Receptus.

Palmer edited the Greek Testament With the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, producing a Greek New Testament text representing the basis of the Revised Version. In the 1881 Revision it was stated "A revision of the Greek text was the necessary foundation of our work; but it did not fall within our province to construct a continuous and complete Greek text." Palmer's text was a post facto text, designed to meet the need of showing the Greek behind the decisions of the English committee.

 

It's pretty easy to see the dates in history and see that what you are stating here does not square with the facts. I'm sorry that you have been taught wrongly and you have embraced that. I will pray that God will show you just how strong He is and how He has kept His Word from the moment it was penned to today.

 

Dark ages - according tho the New World Encyclopedia

 

Do not post falsehoods about me or anyone else on this forum. Final warning.

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, worships Mary. That is a falsehood.

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, believes in purgatory. That is a falsehood.

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, goes to confession. That is a falsehood. And the pronoun is spelled "their" - 3rd grade English grammar.

My answer is that posting falsehoods about anyone on this forum is a banning offense. And posting statements about historic figures requires you either document your claim or withdraw it.

So, either document your above claims, or withdraw them, and offer the forum a sincere apology or find another forum to spew your vile falsehoods. This forum, as with all ethical persons, is intolerant of character assassination.

 

The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[Mommsen, Theodore (1942). "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'". Speculum (Cambridge MA: Medieval Academy of America) 17 (2): 226–242.][Thompson, Bard (1996). Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans. p. 13.]

Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. The actual term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998) p. 155. Baronius, Caesar. Annales Ecclesiastici, Vol. X. Roma, 1602, p. 647]

Later, historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages (c. 11th–13th century), including the lack of Latin literature, and a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and lack of material cultural achievements in general.

Now, can we get back to the actual discussion?

 

I don't care what you call it. It is history. The way it actually happened. Not the way a bunch of ignorant revisionists wished it had happened.

Yeah, yeah, we all know about the 5th of November, which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

That is my question to you! Why do you hang on to the same lies after it has been explained to you that they are lies?

Elizabeth I's struggle with Catholic Spain was predicated on the fact she succeeded her sister, Mary, as Queen. Her sister Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, who was the daughter of their Catholic Magisties Queen Isabella I of Castile and King Ferdinand II of Aragon. All of which has nothing at all to do with the Dark Ages.

Erasmus was a Catholic, as was Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. They are the ones who published the Textus Receptus. In fact Erasmus obtained an exclusive four-year publishing privilege from Pope Leo X in 1516. Cardinal Jimenez's Complutensian Polyglott Textus Receptus was published under a Papal imprimatur.

Hort. His name is spelled Hort.

Not true. A blatant falsehood. Withdraw the falsehood and apologize.

Not true. A blatant falsehood. Withdraw the falsehood and apologize.

You have to be kidding, right? Erasmus lived from 1466 to 1536 and Origen lived from 185 to 254 AD. In other words Erasmus missed being a disciple of Origen by about 1200 years.

Also that nonsense about Origen and Vaticanus being contemporary? Not even close. Origen died in 254 AD and Codex Vaticanus was produced in 325-350 AD. Almost 100 years after Origen was dead.

And you are on very thin ice.

Now, apologize for making false statements about me, then either post evidence to support your slander of Westcott and Hort or withdraw your false claims. Enough is enough.

 

Okay, here is the definitive answer to the thread title:

The easy answer to which bible is the real one.

All of them. There. Wasn't that easy? All bibles are "real" bibles. I knew they are real because I have several of them on my book shelf.

Now it is undeniable that some are better than others.

Some are better because they are based on a better textform.

Some are better because they are translated using a better translation technique.

But all are the word of God in English. And this can easily be proven. Ask yourself this question, "Can a person get saved reading this bible?" If so, that bible is the real word of God. How do we know that? "Simple" as the thread title says. What is God's definition of "The Holy Scriptures?" 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There you have it folks. That is what God says about English translations. If you can get saved reading it, it is a "real" bible, The Holy Scriptures. QED

And that pretty much ends the discussion.

 

Correct.

About 350 Greek manuscripts. And out that 350 only Minuscules Codex Montfortianus (Minuscule 61 Gregory-Aland, c. 1520), 629 (Codex Ottobonianus, 14th/15th century), 918 (16th century), 2318 (18th century) contain the comma.

Correct. With the exception of the ERV of 1881, and its American counterpart, the ASV of 1901, no current bible was translated exclusively from the 1881 Greek New Testament published by Westcott and Hort.

So, Jordan, are you saying the KJV is wrong in Psalm 12:6-7? After all, the translation committee included a marginal note indicating "thou shalt preserve them" is referring to the poor and needy of verse 5 and not the "words" of verse 6. Hebrew grammar absolutely forbids it (and God is not so stupid He doesn't understand Hebrew grammar) and the KJV translators even made sure their readers understood what "them" was referring to.

And nobody has claimed bible preservation is not taught elsewhere in the bible. In fact the concept is everywhere in the bible. The point is that the original poster doesn't understand what Psalm 12:6-7 is talking about. (He has proven he doesn't know very much of anything and just keeps repeating lies over and over again ignoring the fact those lies have been shown to be lies over and over again. )

Here is a copy of the marginal note in the 1st edition, 1st printing, of the KJV/AV of 1611.