Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

DHK,

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I said, so I will just say no. Don't put words in my mouth.

The perfect is Jesus, when He comes back, your favorite verse will be fulfilled!

Until then we will all continue to use whatever version of the bible that we want to.

Selah,

Tam

Click to expand...

This is where you are wrong, and why a discussion of the Bible and translations are so important. You see there are in reality only two Bibles: those translated from the critical text (which most modern versions are), and those translated from the majority text or received text, from which came the KJV. The differences between the two vary quite a bit. Those that are up to date on this discussion can give you many references where the mv's have ommitted verses that the KJV has not. So the Bible debate rages on. Which text is the correct one. That debate in itself is legitimate. What is not a legitimate debate is for one party to take an extreme view and claim that only one translation of the Bible whether it be KJV or otherwise and say that it is the only "translation" that is now inspired and infallible without any mistake whatsoever. Correct nterpretation of passages must come from the Greek. That is one reason why I know that your interpretation of 1Cor.13:10 is wrong. Christ is not a neuter person. He is a man is he not? Men are masculine. That is only common sense. They can't be referred to in the neuter gender. The Greek helps us to understand what the English translation is saying. The English translation, in this case is not wrong. It is simply our understanding of it needs to be further clarified with the help of the Greek, in which the Word of God has been preserved. It has not been preserved in any translation. Man's translation's are fallible. God has preserved his word in the languages in which it was written in, thus we must be able to refer to them for the proper meaning of any passage of Scripture.
DHK

IMO, at this stage I think both DHK and AV have to narrow the gap, because KJV itself is not perfect. God preserved Bible in the original language. The main problem with Critics or MV's was that they attack on the bases of Minority texts, Septuagynt, BHS etc.

There are certain room for the improvement of vocabularies in KJV, not the doctrinal issues.

If any modern bible can still maintain the discernment of KJV while they improve the vocabularies, then we can have a good competitive Bible. Until such time, KJV may remain the Best, not the Only.

(Luk 2:3) And all went to be registered, each to his own city. (MKJV)
and,
Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (KJV)

Why the apparent discrpency? Here it is not the Greek that is in question. It is the translation. There was no taxation at the time of Christ's birth.
DHK [/QB]

Click to expand...

Luke 2:1-3 Taxed or a Census?

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world shoud BE TAXED. (And THIS TAXING was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went TO BE TAXED, every one into his own city." Luke 2:1-3 King James Bible

Another example of the typical attacks made by the King James Bible critics is taken from Luke chapter two.

At one of the Christian clubs I belong to a member writes: "that all the world should be REGISTERED, This CENSUS first took place...Luke 2:1-3 (NKJV) versus, "that all the world should BE TAXED. And this TAXING was first made when Cyrenius was governor..." (KJV).

He then comments: "Both versions come from the same text, the Textus Receptus. Why the apparent discrepancy? Here it is not the Greek that is in question. It is the translation. There was no taxation at the time of Christ's birth. That is what the KJV says. But that is not what the Greek actually conveys. It wasn't a tax at all. It was a census that was being taken. But then how would you know that if you never went to the Greek? There is an obvious loss of meaning in translation, if not here an obvious error in translation. How important is it, to check the original source and not to confine oneself to a translation that is not inspired, and cannot be infallible?"

So how do we King James Bible believers answer this criticism? First, we should point out what the Greek word in question actually refers to. Secondly, we will show that not all Bible translators are in agreement with this man's OPINION, and Thirdly, we will show that not all Bible commentators agree with him either.

Many Greek Lexicons point out that the word apographee and the verb form, apographo, can refer to a taxation. Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press 1968 says on page 194 (All caps are mine): 1. A register; 2. A register of persons LIABLE TO TAXATION. 3. A written list.

Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament says on page 60 that "the new laographic POLL -TAX was closely connected with the census." Then they give an example of the Greek verb apographo being translated as: "I have REGISTERED AS SUBJECT TO TAX...."

The Baer, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek Lexicon 1957 says on page 88 regarding the word apographee: "An inventory of the statistical reports and declarations of citizens FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE TAX LISTS and family registers."

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Zondervan, 19th printing 1978 page 60 says: "An enrolment of the public record of persons together with their property and income that it might appear HOW MUCH TAX SHOULD BE LEVIED upon each one."


Easton's Bible Dictionary - Luke 2:1-3 taxing. (Luke 2:2; RSV, "enrolment"), "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," is simply a census of the people, or an enrolment of them WITH A VIEW TO THEIR TAXATION. The decree for the enrolment was the occasion of Joseph and Mary's going up to Bethlehem. It has been argued by some that Cyrenius was governor of Cilicia and Syria both at the time of our Lord's birth and some years afterwards. This decree FOR THE TAXING referred to the whole Roman world, and not to Judea alone."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: "Quirinius was sent to Judea to take a census (apographe) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE POLL-TAX."

Smith's Bible Dictionary notes: "The registration of the people for the PURPOSE OF A POLL-TAX. Two distinct registrations, OR TAXINGS, are mentioned in the New Testament, both of them by St. Luke. The first is said to have been the result of an edict of the emperor Augustus, that "all the world (i.e. the Roman empire) should be taxed," (Luke 2:1) and is connected by the evangelist with the name of Cyrenius."


Other Bible Versions

Not only does the King James Bible correctly read "should BE TAXED, and THIS TAXING was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" but so do the following English Bible translations: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Scholars, as usual, are spread all over the map in their interpretations of this passage, but there are many scholarly articles written about these events recorded in Luke 2 in which the authors clearly tell us that this census or registry was for the explicit purpose, NOT of merely counting the people, but for the purpose of TAXATION.

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/lk2v1.html

"The “census” was a registration or enrollment of the people. The TAXATION would follow based on the census or registration. IT WAS REALLY A REGISTRATION FOR TAXING PURPOSES. The census is for the registration of all citizens in the Roman Empire so the government could collect taxes in the near future. This was the first of regular censuses to follow every 14 years."


http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo, that literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official listing of citizens. What was it then, a census or A TAXING? BOTH. It would have been a census taken in part FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING TAXES."

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/42-23.htm

John MacArthur (certainly no KJB onlyist) writes about Luke 2 saying: "The Roman Empire was vast and he used census BASICALLY FOR TAXATION. That's the same reason we have census today in our own country, to identify all the citizens SO THEY CAN BE TAXED. And that's exactly what was happening in that day. He wanted TO TAX the full extent of the Roman Empire because he was providing services for all of these nations which had become vassals to the great power of Rome... Herod didn't know anything about the purposes and plan of God. But God was working all the details on a world setting. From Caesar's standpoint HE WAS TAXING."


David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible says: "The registration and census described WASN'T FOR SIMPLE RECORD-KEEPING or statistics. IT WAS TO efficiently and effectively TAX everyone in the Roman Empire."

John Lightfoot says in his commentary on the gospel of Luke: "Aethicus tells us, this had been done before; whose words, since they concern so great and noble a monument of antiquity, may not prove tedious to the reader to be transcribed in this place: "He took upon him the government both of their manners and laws, and both perpetual: by which right, though without the title of censor, he laid A TAX upon the people three times; the first and third with his colleague, the second alone." The first with his colleague, M. Agrippa; the third, with his colleague Tiberius; the second, by himself alone; and this was THE TAX our evangelist makes mention of in this place."

The People's New Testament Commentary says: "That all the world. The Roman empire which embraced all the world then known to civilization; all southern and western Europe, western Asia and northern Africa. Should be enrolled. A census was to be taken as a preliminary to A POLL TAX in the provinces. Augustus Cæsar, incensed at Herod, ordered an enrolment FOR TAXATION of the Jews the year of the birth of Jesus. It was carried out in all probability by Cyrenius. The intercession of Herod's minister, Nicolas, averted the displeasure of Augustus and THE TAXATION did not take place until Cyrenius was governor of Syria, after Archelaus, son of Herod, was deposed...Women had to be enrolled also and were subject to THE POLL TAX. Mary was of the line of David, and hence would also have to go to Bethlehem."

Even Robertson's Word Pictures, (very much against the KJB) says: "It was a census, not a taxing, though taxing generally followed and was based on the census."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: "THAT THERE WAS A TAXING, however, of the whole Roman Empire under Augustus,IS NOW ADMITTED BY ALL; and candid critics, even of skeptical tendency, are ready to allow that there is not likely to be any real inaccuracy in the statement of our Evangelist. But it is perhaps better to suppose, with others, that the registration may have been ordered WITH A VIEW TO THE TAXATION, about the time of our Lord's birth, though THE TAXING itself--an obnoxious measure in Palestine--was not carried out till the time of Quirinus."

Finally John Calvin notes in his Commentaries Volume XVI: "Agustus orders a registration to take place in Judea, and each person to give his name, that they may afterwards PAY AN ANNUAL TAX...Nor did Herod's peculiar authority as king make it inconsistent that the Jews should pay to the Roman Empire a stipulated sum for each man UNDER THE NAME OF A TAX."

There is no error at all in the King James Bible reading of "all the world should be taxed". This registry or enrollment was NOT just a head count of the people. To translate in such a way as do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman versions, that this was merely a census of the population is to miss the point. The registry was made for the specific purpose of TAXATION and the King James Bible and several others correctly bring out this meaning.


Will Kinney

Will,
I expect the evidence will support the KJV as you have shown in several posts. And I think the foundation for such knowledge also supports the KJV. And this is what I cannot seem to get a valid reponse to. The bible teaches that God preserved his own words and gathered them together into a book. His words are self verifying and self authentication, subjectively being witnessed by his Spirit, and objectively by the impossibility of the contrary. In order to make language, science, logic, and history cogent you need the theological and metaphysical presuppositions revealved in the bible (a real thing).
That being the case you cannot bring any criticism against the bible, since it validates criticism. It is the source of authority for logic and science and without the doctine of the bible you cannot account for logic or science.
This is contrary to the modern drive to find problems in every text, every translation, and every manuscript. This drive is contrary to itself for it judges the very book that can save it from utter skepticism, and sets up innumerable final authorities in the form of the image of man. All of these pretenders want the truth of the bible without an actual bible. Thus the theoretical 'bible' not ever found on earth at any time. This allows the proud of heart to flatter themselves that they can 'speak Greek', and correct every other mans work. Or as the KJV translators said when they anticipated being "maligned by selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil".
The existence of the evolving nature of language, seems to be the springboard they use to try and correct the KJV and justify themselves about it. They even strain at the gnat of archaic words and swallow the camel of manuscript corruption. God of course doesn't providentially preserve his own words the way he showed himself to in the bible. Nay, rather he preserves his words in such a way as will allow them to show off their linguistic skills. Humbly asserting ‘God providentially guides me as I assemble his word for myself’. The priesthood of scholars.
Not knowing that proving all things requires the spiritual man to compare spiritual things with spiritual, they are proving the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth by things which mans wisdom teacheth. And by subjecting the bible to science and archeology and human philosophy they put leaven into the bible itself. Claiming that God preserves his words in an unbiblical manner, not speaking according to the word. They subvert any real final authority, sowing discord among brethren by raising doubts about every translation, and every Greek and Hebrew text rendering men double minded, and overthrowing the faith of some. They cast odium upon the self authenticating nature of the scripture by the testimony of the Spirit, and raise up the doctrines of men, the work of the craftsman in its place which affirm the position of evidential scholarship to judge what is a word of God and what is not.
What thinkest thou?
AV

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

The thing about the Bible is, that it is about faith. God did not tell us certain things on purpose. We have to take it by faith. Just read the 11th chapter of Hebrews.

Click to expand...

God reveals things to some people and not to others because some are obedient and others are not.

Hi AV. I love your stuff. You are approaching this topic from a different angle and I really appreciate your thoughts on this most vital issue. I post some of your responses over at the Which Version club, and Bookborn's too.

God bless,

Will K

All of these pretenders want the truth of the bible without an actual bible. Thus the theoretical 'bible' not ever found on earth at any time. This allows the proud of heart to flatter themselves that they can 'speak Greek', and correct every other mans work.


AV [/QB]

Click to expand...

Originally posted by AV:
The bible teaches that God preserved his own words and gathered them together into a book.

Click to expand...

No, manuscripts.

This is contrary to the modern drive to find problems in every text, every translation, and every manuscript.

Click to expand...

When one designs a car don't the designers look for problems to hopefully ensure a good running car. When one designs a piece of equipment to be safe don't the safety engineers look for problems to ensure a safe piece of equipment. Wouldn't you want the text you use to be free of problems rather than adulterated by added text. We do know that words have been added to manuscripts over the years and out in as text. The problem is trying to determine the correct text. Often that is an objective endeavor and sometimes not so objective.

This drive is contrary to itself for it judges the very book that can save it from utter skepticism, and sets up innumerable final authorities in the form of the image of man. All of these pretenders want the truth of the bible without an actual bible.

Click to expand...

The truth is that we want an accurate Bible and not settle for some arbitrary text decided by ignorance or some idiot teaching. The early Bibles did not have any references nor any punctuation, spacing or lower case letters.

Thus the theoretical 'bible' not ever found on earth at any time. This allows the proud of heart to flatter themselves that they can 'speak Greek', and correct every other mans work.

Click to expand...

So you have actually spoken with the committee which edits the UBS and NA texts? The fact is that many others who translate do not agree with the TR not do they always agree with the NA27 or UBS 4th rev. ed. Your claim is quite a wide when claiming that all textual critics are proud and arrogant. If cometime you would read about W.F. Albright you might find a man who was quite different than you claim. Especially read about what happened to him as a kid.

The existence of the evolving nature of language, seems to be the springboard they use to try and correct the KJV and justify themselves about it.

Click to expand...

It is not about promoting SYI but determining an unadulterated text.

God of course doesn't providentially preserve his own words the way he showed himself to in the bible. Nay, rather he preserves his words in such a way as will allow them to show off their linguistic skills. Humbly asserting ‘God providentially guides me as I assemble his word for myself’. The priesthood of scholars.

Click to expand...

Then you would agree there are no manuscript variations?

Not knowing that proving all things requires the spiritual man to compare spiritual things with spiritual, they are proving the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth by things which mans wisdom teacheth.

Click to expand...

The humble remember James 4:6, "But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Whereas the proud ignore it.

Claiming that God preserves his words in an unbiblical manner, not speaking according to the word.

Click to expand...

What is the biblical manner?

They subvert any real final authority, sowing discord among brethren by raising doubts about every translation, and every Greek and Hebrew text rendering men double minded, and overthrowing the faith of some.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is better?

Actually when I found out what textual critics and translators do and the difficulties they faced I began to greatly appreciate their work and the criticism they faced. It gave me a new appreciation for the Bible I have.

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
There are certain room for the improvement of vocabularies in KJV, not the doctrinal issues.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a man-made decison and not God given? But wasn't the KJV translation also a man-made decision?

gb93433,
Maybe you can tell us which scholars and rules you follow and hold in such esteem and why?
• Some think we should as a rule follow the fuller text in all cases.
• Some think we should assume it in some cases; each case should be independently examined, no ‘artificial rule’.
• Some think we should prefer the shorter readings because copyists were more likely to add than leave off when copying, feeling that it was safer to make texts match. Or to insert new material.
• Some think that marginal notes ended up in the text because of the economic strain of poor scribes. Scribes just could not afford to buy new writing materials every time they made mistakes because they were usually economically challenged. And every time they made a mistake they couldn’t ball up the material and toss it in the waste basket.
• Some think scribes had a propensity towards repeating phrases when copying.
• Some think scribes were more likely to leave off than add, as statistics relating to human nature imply.
• Some think a scribes ‘piety expanding’ better explains the fuller readings and should be rejected.
• Some think that if a disputed passage is in question and there are parallel passages, the reading that disagrees with the parallel passages should be chosen.
• Some think we should apply statistical probability to recover the original readings.
• Some think the majority of witnesses should rule.
• Some think an eclectic approach is better.
• Some think the older manuscripts are more reliable, and we know the older ones by carbon dating. (Carbon dating has built in assumptions that young earth creationists reject.)
• Some think quotes from the early church ‘fathers’ (patristic evidence) should be considered authentic and allowed as evidence in disputes. (Of course the ‘church fathers’ are known by their doctrine and thus are judged by the bible. The bible cannot be the judge and the judged at the same time.)
• The more difficult reading is to be preferred, according to some, because scribes (‘as a rule’) generally tried to smooth out (change) difficult readings.
• Some say the reading that doesn’t reflect doctrinal bias should be chosen.
• Some think every New Testament reading must have a corresponding Greek manuscript.
• Some think early translations hold some weight (how much weight is unknown).

When did all or any of these general 'rules' cause any particular manuscript to become corrupted? Since you have all these things figured out to the point that you can correct the word of God, you are obligated to help us poor ignorant souls out of an horrible pit.
Thanks for a hand not shortened that it cannot save,
AV

First of all, I thank Will for his contribution on this issue. As I mentioned before KJV has always the good reasons whenever it differs from other versions. Still I would consider it and classify it as a matter of vocabulary instead of doctrinal issues.

What AV pointed out and reminded me of are the fact that straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel because MV's intentionally forget about the history and depart from TR, making Minority texts as their bases, and another fact that God's providence reaches unto language formation, language alteration, politics and many other things.

However, my belief about the God's preservation remains up to Masoretic Texts and TR/MT only, even though I believe that the Inspiration by HS worked well in Translation of KJV and God preserved it and its language and the nation which use it and protect it and KJV will remain as the main and the best representation of Words of God until Lord comes. This makes us be vigilant to study the Words of God in the original languages and to preserve Masorah/TR.

As for vocabularies, we need to make a certain elaboration among the true believers who believe in the Inspiration of HS, with the loving-kindness to KJV which has preserved the Words of God so far.

I mentioned about Inn in Luke 2:7 which is found
as Guestchamber in Luke 22:11. The Inn is found in Luke 10 as Pan-dokeyon in the story of Good Samaritan.
The layout of ancient Israel houses reveals that the guestrooms were often used for storing the crops right after the harvest, which tells us the timing around end of April or before Pentecost. This type of vocabularies can be discussed and elaborated after confirmation.

My belief is that we can discuss such matter only based on Majority Texts and TR, and Ben Chayyim Masorah.

Originally posted by gb93433:
Wouldn't you want the text you use to be free of problems rather than adulterated by added text. We do know that words have been added to manuscripts over the years and out in as text. The problem is trying to determine the correct text. Often that is an objective endeavor and sometimes not so objective.
/QUOTE]


If you disbelieve TR or if you believe that the words were added to TR, then why don't you cut out the story of the woman caught in adultery? Do you delete it?
Do you delete Mark 16:12-20?
I wonder you have read about the history of Bible.
Do you know that RC prohibited Bible Reading officially since 1229 until 1962?
Do you know that RC killed Bible translators like William Tyndale?
How vehemently did RC object to KJV when it was published? then, when they failed to prevent it, they changed the policy to pouring in the corrupted bibles thru Revision Committee. I know how much corrupted human minds are as Bible indicated all the time.

You would not agree about it. In that case I don't need to listen to me any more.

Click to expand...

Eliyahu,
They are wiser in their own conceit than seven men who can render a reason. For this cause they will ignore scripture and wave the banner of 'modern scholarship preservation'. It's kind of a shotgun style. The 'original words' are scattered all over the place and scholars comparing manuscripts using the type of vain janglings posted above, will claim they can sift through the manuscripts and piece together the originals. Mostly however the method is a majority text approach, so they hold on to it and let go of it at the same time. They call it an artificial rule when applied to the 10% varient readings, but they boast about how most texts agree at least 90% of the time. So we establish 90% of the readings using a majority approach but then cast it aside and lay hold upon the perverse disputings listed above. The contrary is in them.
I would like to see exactly how they think they can judge which are the words of God and which are not. Especially since they must start with the words of God because of the impossibility of the contrary.
AV

To me, Minority texts have no value at all and I don't want to owe anything to them.
I can discuss with any person who acknowledge this fact first that Minority Texts have been preserved by those who had run the Human Body Slaughter House and prohibited the reading of Bible. Why didn't they preserve many manuscripts? They had all the power to preserve the books and manuscripts, but they didn't.

Thereafter we can discuss between Majority Texts and TR. Whenever I encountered the difference between 2, I examined carefully and waited for the guidance from the Lord, and in most cases TR has good reasons for them. If we take MT for 1 John 5:7, we have to give up Johannine COMMA. But we know TR is superior in that aspect, and we find more cases in Revelation and others.

It is difficult to defend the manuscripts or texts without being materialized in the form of common language. In that aspect, KJV is very much necessary. When we defend TR against MV based on our translation, it sounds very weak. But if we refer to KJV, then we get the supporting power. In that aspect KJV works until Lord comes. I heard official publishing exceeded 5 billion last year but the actual may be 6-8 billion volumes so far. This record may not be broken by any other versions until Lord comes.
In our church it seems that nobody can swift from KJV to any other versions, even though someone on this BB say that KJV will disappear soon, which sounds like Voltaire who said that nobody will believe in God after 100 years. Since his death, his house near Notre Dame in Paris is used for distributing Bibles now.

Originally posted by Eliyahu:

How vehemently did RC object to KJV when it was published? then, when they failed to prevent it, they changed the policy to pouring in the corrupted bibles thru Revision Committee. I know how much corrupted human minds are as Bible indicated all the time.

Click to expand...

Many protestants opposed the KJV at the time it was published. They also opposed contemporary music by Isaac Watts.

Originally posted by Eliyahu:

Do you delete Mark 16:12-20?

Click to expand...

Mark 16:17-18, ""These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Do you speak with new tongues and charm snakes?

Originally posted by AV:
Since you have all these things figured out to the point that you can correct the word of God, you are obligated to help us poor ignorant souls out of an horrible pit.

Click to expand...

Tell us about the disiples you have made or do you correct Mt. 28:19,20 by a conservative disobedience?

Originally posted by AV:
gb93433,
Maybe you can tell us which scholars and rules you follow and hold in such esteem and why?
• Some think we should as a rule follow the fuller text in all cases.
• Some think we should assume it in some cases; each case should be independently examined, no ‘artificial rule’.
• Some think we should prefer the shorter readings because copyists were more likely to add than leave off when copying, feeling that it was safer to make texts match. Or to insert new material.
• Some think that marginal notes ended up in the text because of the economic strain of poor scribes. Scribes just could not afford to buy new writing materials every time they made mistakes because they were usually economically challenged. And every time they made a mistake they couldn’t ball up the material and toss it in the waste basket.
• Some think scribes had a propensity towards repeating phrases when copying.
• Some think scribes were more likely to leave off than add, as statistics relating to human nature imply.
• Some think a scribes ‘piety expanding’ better explains the fuller readings and should be rejected.
• Some think that if a disputed passage is in question and there are parallel passages, the reading that disagrees with the parallel passages should be chosen.
• Some think we should apply statistical probability to recover the original readings.
• Some think the majority of witnesses should rule.
• Some think an eclectic approach is better.
• Some think the older manuscripts are more reliable, and we know the older ones by carbon dating. (Carbon dating has built in assumptions that young earth creationists reject.)
• Some think quotes from the early church ‘fathers’ (patristic evidence) should be considered authentic and allowed as evidence in disputes. (Of course the ‘church fathers’ are known by their doctrine and thus are judged by the bible. The bible cannot be the judge and the judged at the same time.)
• The more difficult reading is to be preferred, according to some, because scribes (‘as a rule’) generally tried to smooth out (change) difficult readings.
• Some say the reading that doesn’t reflect doctrinal bias should be chosen.
• Some think every New Testament reading must have a corresponding Greek manuscript.
• Some think early translations hold some weight (how much weight is unknown).

Click to expand...

Could you name 10 who are the "Some"?

The translators of the KJV(1611) borrowed so much from the Catholic English translation the Douay-Rheims(1582)which was translated based on the Catholic Latin Vulgate, the KJV should really be considered a daughter text of the Douay-Rheims.

Now you KJVO may argue that it is just coincidence that so much of the KJV(1611) is identical or nearly identical to the Douay-Rheims version(1582) and the KJV translators did not rely heavily on a Catholic Bible. You would argue it is just coincidence that one group going from greek and one group translating from Latin got so much similar. This stretches the imagination the similarities are so great but lets say it is theoretically possible.

How then do you explain all the verses that are in the Catholic Latin Vulgate text and the catholic Douay Rheims(1582) but not in the Greek text used by the KJV translators yet somehow miraculously they made it into the KJV(1611).

This is just a partial listing
 
Matthew 27:35 "that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

Luke 7:31 "And the Lord said"
 
Luke 20:19 "the people"

Acts 7:37 "him shall ye hear"

Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 9:5,6 "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

Acts 9:17 "Jesus"

Acts 10:6 "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"

Acts 20:21 "Christ"

Acts 24:6-8 "and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee"

Romans 13:9 "Thou shalt not bear false witness"

1 Thessalonians 2:19 "Christ"

Revelation 1:8 "the beginning and the ending"

Revelation 5:7 "the book"

Revelation 5:14 "four and twenty"

Revelation 8:7 "angel"

Revelation 11:17 "and art to come"

Revelation 12:17 "Christ"

Revelation 14:5 "before the throne of God"

Revelation 22:2 "tree of life"

The KJV is beautiful translation but it owes a huge debt to the Catholic Douay-Rheims from which so much was borrowed, so clearly if you believe the KJV translators were inspired you must believe that the Douay Rheims translators also shared in this inspiration.

As an intersting side note there are a handful of disgruntled Catholics who think the Douay-Rheims 1582 to ~1830 versions (not as it appears today) should be the only English Bible translations used by the faithful. Every family has a few of these type of relatives.

gb93433,
You touted the virtues of modern scholarship stating:
"Actually when I found out what textual critics and translators do and the difficulties they faced I began to greatly appreciate their work and the criticism they faced. It gave me a new appreciation for the Bible I have."

I thought you could clarify which rules and scholars you greatly appreciate. I don't meditate therein day and night, so I have only a few of their works. And I don't have appreciation for most of the vain janglings listed. Do you not have a defense for any of it, and are introducing red herrings? You think they are doing a great job, what exactly are they doing? Why don't you tell us if thou knowest?
Thanks,
AV

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
The translators of the KJV(1611) borrowed so much from the Catholic English translation the Douay-Rheims(1582)which was translated based on the Catholic Latin Vulgate, the KJV should really be considered a daughter text of the Douay-Rheims.

Click to expand...

I think you have forgotten Two more words,
which are Jesus, Lord.
Those are found in Catholic Bible and in KJV as well.

Actually, KJV reflected 70-75% of William Tyndales, in NT.
Those words which are common are the words which were common in that era.