The KJV is sufficient for me

Most of the modern versions also attack the KJV in changing "us" and "we" to "they" and "them" in Rev. 5:9,10. Changing the story entirely.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Using the process of elimination and the history books, recognizing that every scripture today including the KJV, is a copy of something.

Since you don't seem to know the History of the bible too well, I will attempt to condense it for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Okay, Alex. I am sure I don't know as much as I should, and probably don't know as much about the history of the English bible as you do, but I have been Professor of Ecclesiastical History at San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary for 15 years, and have written extensively on the translation issue, including the history of the English bible. But I will take your word for it. You know more about it than I do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prior to the King James (1611), it was in the Geneva Bible (1560), prior to that, The Mathews bible (1537), the Tyndale (1525).

There were other English Bibles, but I am uncertain as to their reliability. Bibles such as the Bishops (1568), Douay (1610), Great (1539) Coverdale (1535), Wycliffe (1380).

All of these English translations, leading up to the KJV, were translated from the group of texts known as the Majority Text,the Byzantine Text, the Imperial text, The Traditional and the Reformation Texts. All of these culminated in the Textus Receptus. These manuscripts were also known as the Universal Text due to their universal acceptance. More on this later.

Remember, the KJV was the last English Bible to be translated from this line of manuscripts. It is unique in that respect.


Literally ALL of the other versions,The Revised Version (1881), American Standard (1901), NIV (1948), RSV (1952), RSV (1952),Amplified (1965), JB (1966), NEB (1970), NASB (1971), LB paraphrased (1971), NIV (1978), NKJV (1982), the Catholic bible plus many more, came from a combination of earlier manuscripts (Minority Text), Egyptian Text, The Hesychian text, the Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Siniaticus as well as Dead Sea scrolls and Newer Manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well now Alex, here is where you are mistaken. The KJV is based on the Byzantine textform, but so are several of the modern versions, including the NKJV, Green's Literal Translation, The 21st Century Bible, the 3rd Millenium Bible and several others including a Baptist version in about 1865 and the Webster and Darby version from the 18th and 19th century. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All of these manuscripts, from which every English Version since the Revised version of 1881 evolved, have attacked and weakened the beloved doctrines of Scripture such as, the blood atonement, the trinity, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ and others. It is most evident in the translations which came from these texts.

You simply cannot overlook the FACTs that the Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus were corrupt manuscripts. God did not corrupt them. Satan, working through the humanistic hearts of mankind did that. And, today, we call it God's Word. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks.

They were corrupted by such as Wescott and Hort in their text of 1881 when it was collated with Weymouths Third edition and Tischendorf's (the discoverer of the Codex Siiaticus) eighth edition by Eberhard Nestle to become what is known as Nestle's Greek New testament. This is the text used in all of the modern versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong again. See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Universal Text(preserved perfect), on the other hand, travelled north from Jerusalem to Antioch, which was known as the "Gateway to Europe". It spread through Syria and Europe. It was, at this point, translated into The Syrian Peshitto version and the old Latin Vulgate.

From there to England where God chose to have His perfect word translated into the English language because He knew that would be the universally accepted language.

The History of the preserved word is a fascinating study and too lengthy for this forum. Suffice it to say, we have it Whether we choose to use it is up to us.

Suffice it to say that there were two distinct threads of Bibles stemming from these manuscripts the evidence is very much with us today. One need only look at them breifly to know they are different Bibles.

The modern versions are all in agreement against the KJV in the fundamental doctrines
of our faith noted earlier. They weaken the message of the gospel in thousands of words and passages, some of them glaring, some of them very subtle. That is another whole topic.

This thing has gone on too long and too much time has been spent rehashing what has been known for centuries by anyone who cares to study the history of the Bible in an open and objective way.

Suffice it to say that satan has accomplished his obective of making many of you believe that the KJV is too hard to read and understand.

The facts are clear. God has chosen to preserve His Word perfect in the KJV for us want it.

The KJV is more than sufficient for me.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I will just lump all the rest together as an unfortunate example of the errors of someone who claims to know the history of textual transmission.

I will ignore most of your errors and just ask one little question. Of all the Byzantine MSS (over 5200) which one is the "perfectly preserved" word of God. Which MSS is without any error of any sort? And which MSS or text did the KJV come from? It differs from all 30+ Greek texts known as "Textus Receptus." Which one is the real one? And which KJV is the "perfectly preserved" one? The 1611? 1613? 1629? 1762? 1769? And what about the differences? How can the 1762/1769 (which I presume you use) be the "perfectly preserved" bible if it differs from the 1611? Was the 1611 wrong? Or is the 1762/1769 wrong?

You said a lot, but you never did answer any of my questions.

Which Greek MSS is the "perfectly preserved" MSS?

Which Greek text is the "perfectly preserved" text?

Which KJV is the "perfectly preserved" KJV?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Most of the modern versions also attack the KJV in changing "us" and "we" to "they" and "them" in Rev. 5:9,10. Changing the story entirely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MV's attack the KJV by differing with it? That is a most curious definition of attack. Did Erasmus attack all of the Greek manuscripts (save two late ones) by including the Trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. I don't think so but by your rule he did and subsequently so does the KJV.

Does the KJV attack the MV's by its less accurate translation of Titus 2:13?

 

Alex et al. God could have allowed the printing press to be invented by the Romans. They certainly understood metals well enough. They understood diecasting. Adequate inks were available. We would have had perfect copies?!! But it was God's will otherwise. He didn't. Just like He didn't inspire the KJV translators to choose the perfect words translating the perfect Greek/Hebrew texts to perfectly equal the originals.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Dr Cassidy, Phillip, others

...He just permitted it to be lost, they say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Most of us say that He divinely preserved His Word without preserving the original words in a single document or even group of documents.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...they do all they can to attack and destroy that belief and the faith one has in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A belief held in contradiction to facts is not faith but nothing more than superstition. It has nothing at all in common with true Christianity. Dr. Cassidy may be right. The KJV may be the best translation we have but there is not close to enough evidence to assign perfection to it much less preservation by a divine act of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A warning to others: If you can see this as being "an issue" and you take your stand, openly and unashamedly for the KJV as being your final authority, the pure and true word of God, perfect in every respect for you in the English language today, then...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an amazingly consistent pattern with KJVO's that when they are confronted with facts or someone demands proof they circle the wagons and take on the victim status.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't ever stop believing that God can and did preserve His word without error, perfect and infallible in the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, believe what you want but if your beliefs are in contradiction to known facts then it is not equivalent to faith.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It has been with us for thousands of years, 390 of those years in the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. And for the first 20 years of the Christian church. The church didn't have any of the NT. For the next 50 years, the NT was written with few individuals in possession of copies. For the next 200+ years, copies of the various books proliferated with few if any of the churches, much less individual Christians, owning all of what we know as the NT. Also, many of these churches accepted books as scripture which were eventually rejected from the canon. For the next 1000+ years, hand copied mss were expensive and primarily owned by churches and the wealthy. During this whole period, few if any of the copies of the Word of God were identical to another. Did any of these Christians have the Word of God?....Oh and BTW, during those first 300 years before the canon of scripture was actually agreed upon, Christianity went from a small group of outcast Jews to the most powerful movement in the world. Obviously, God did not need a perfectly preserved, complete text then, what makes you think He does now?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't forget to read Luke 21: 33, Matt 24;24, Psalm 12 6-7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your misapplication and misinterpretation of scripture does nothing to further your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>May God bless and guide you in your search for that easier-to-read version. There should be another one rolling off the presses any second now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you not have any more respect for the name of God than this? To invoke His name as a means of sarcastically bite other professing Christians?

Truly, "the poison of asps is under their lips"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The MV's attack the KJV by differing with it? That is a most curious definition of attack. Did Erasmus attack all of the Greek manuscripts (save two late ones) by including the Trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. I don't think so but by your rule he did and subsequently so does the KJV.

Does the KJV attack the MV's by its less accurate translation of Titus 2:13?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott, maybe that was a bad choice for words, I didn't mean they attack the KJV in that sense, just that the difference changes the scripture entirely, and most people on this board say that the changes in the MV's are slight variants, in these verses this is not so.

 

I do use some of the MV's in my studies, and I like some of them alot, but I never study with them by themseleves. I always study them with my KJV open also. Because when it comes right down to it. I could do without any of them, except the trusted and tried KJV. It is the final authority on doctrine, with me anyway.

God speed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
I apologise for offending you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You didn't offend me. Psalm 119:165 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Through his new education he learned that none of the versions, including the KJV, can be called perfect since they are all translations and tainted by the hand of man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then he was taught wrong! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To my simple uneducated mind, there is more than sufficient evidence to prove that the modern versions are different, they are weaker and less effective and they do cause dissention and confusion, which was the whole idea behind them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. But that is not the issue. The issue is WHY are the modern versions weaker and less effective? What is the basis of the difference, and why is the KJV superior to the modern versions. Until you can answer that question, you will not persuade men your bible is better than their's.

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
The "History of the Bible" and the question "Where was it before 1611" requires an answer that is far too complex and lengthy for this board.

Likewise, your question above, "Why are the MV weaker.....show me the money" so to speak is far too lengthy for this forum. The differences, some very glaring, others very subtly number in the thousands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, both questions, though involved and requiring much study, are not all that complex and the answers are not all that lengthy. The simple answer to "where was the bible prior to 1611?" is, in English, in the Tyndale, Geneva, et al, and in the Traditional Texts of the Hebrew and Greek, as well as embodied in the texts of the ancient vernaculars.

The answer to the second question is equally simple. The texts which underlie the KJV are superior to the texts which underlie most modern versions because of:

1. Internal consistancy.
2. Numerical superiority.
3. Historical acceptance/use.
4. Cross textual affinities.
5. Witness of the ancient vernaculars/patristics.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The answer to the second question is equally simple. The texts which underlie the KJV are superior to the texts which underlie most modern versions because of:

1. Internal consistancy.
2. Numerical superiority.
3. Historical acceptance/use.
4. Cross textual affinities.
5. Witness of the ancient vernaculars/patristics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, what he said!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Dr Cassidy, Phillip, others

We have so many believers that do not believe God could or would inspire His word, perfect, and then preserve it through the centuries, then give it to you and me, perfectly, in the English language. He just permitted it to be lost, they say.
A warning to others: If you can see this as being "an issue" and you take your stand, openly and unashamedly for the KJV as being your final authority, the pure and true word of God, perfect in every respect for you in the English language today, then you WILL lose friends and make enenies. But know that you will make new friends along the way and you will find lots of support for this position.

Don't ever stop believing that God can and did preserve His word without error, perfect and infallible in the KJV.

It has been with us for thousands of years, 390 of those years in the KJV.

I agree with you. It is now time to invoke the three page rule and close this thread.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Dr. Thomas, I guess I will just continue to shout because here are the same arguements over and over and they are not helping YOUR cause because of the lack of knowledge.

Now, Alex, please answer these questions:

What does a Russian do for a Bible? He has a different translation and there WILL be translational errors because the grammar will have to be changed? So, you are saying that only we that speak English are privileged to have the true word of God?

The next question is that you keep saying we have had the KJV for 390 years. PLEASE, would you like me to scan you a sheet from a 1611 KJV and show you that it is NOT the same Bible you read today? It has been modified at least twice since then, so which one is the accurate word of God--enough changes have been made to change several verses significantly?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:

Then there would have only been out dated English version's of the Bible until the 1800's. Defending the KJV 1611 is the same as defending the KJV 1757, I believe nothing was changed, on the other hand defending the modern versions is totally diffenent. I understand that the English Bible needed to be updated but not CHANGED. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, friend, but there have been MAJOR, MAJOR changes made since 1611. I keep offering to send you a page from a 1614 King James Bible and I want you to translate it back to me in English without looking at your King James and tell me what it says.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
That is where the problem is. We are stating FACT. Many times we have tried to explain the changing of the Scriptures, and we are called ignorant. When you would rather read the Word of God without the blood atonement, and the virgin birth, that is your right, but I am going to stand against them until the day I die. I believe it is wrong! Don't call us ignorant. I have prayed and studied hard on this subject. That is what God has revealed to me. You can suggest that we pray more on this subject, but what makes you think we haven’t. Are only those that use modern versions intelligent?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who called you ignorant? I will personally tell them it is wrong in brotherly love. We can agree to disagree without personal attacks. I see you say that God has revealed this to you. If this is true then you need to record it because it is the "Word of God" with just as much authority as the Bible. This is the reason Paul jumped on the church at Corinth for saying God revealed this or the Holy Spirit revealed that. They had even gone as far as saying the Holy Spirit said Jesus was a fraud. So, God reveals directly to you, then you are obviously a prophet and never make errors? Let's you and I invest in the stock market together. (A little levity there no insult intended.)
By the way, where do you get this, "without the virgin birth and blood atonement" these are the same ole unproven assaults at God's Word that have been used all along. Your remark about the Mormon Bible is ridiculous though and creating a straw-man argument. The Book of Mormon (to be more accurate) is a fictional piece of work written by Joseph Smith and friends. Why would ANYBODY consider this as being a translation of the Word of God. That argument is rediculous.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I DEFEND the KJV the Word of God!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will defend it as the Word of God too. I will also defend the NASB as the Word of God. Will you tell me that the NASB is NOT the Word of God and is from Satan?

 

Hey guys!

A couple of points.

1. Don't confuse the reaction of people to the Word of God with the translation read! People are naturally rebellious, and those who long for the truth inside and respond to the Lord's call on their life with a 'yes' and submission to Him in full can pick up almost any Bible in their own language and be nourished spiritually by it. On the other hand, a person who is rebellious can also take any Bible and criticize it and blame it for whatever.

2. When my husband and I do Bible studies (daily), we use two Bibles. He uses the KJV and I use the NIV. He reads a section out loud and then I do. When there is a difference we check with both Concordances as well a the LXX, which we also have. Here is what we have found:

-- cultural understandings play a large part in the choice of several possible words coming over from paleo-Hebrew. A word which did not have a negative connotation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, such as 'cunning,' might have a negative connotation today in normal use. If the use in the text is not one that is negative, the word 'prudent' might be used. This, in fact, was a case in point this morning.

-- There are times when the KJV seems to stay closer to the Hebrew intent and times when a more modern version does. One of the commandments is the most famous case in point. "Thou shalt not kill." the KJV says. And then God requires capital punishment for murder, commands Israel to wipe out entire cultures (that's a LOT of killing!), etc. Several centuries ago the meaning was very clear. It is muddied today because of changes in word usage. The commandment today clearly means "You shall not murder." The clear meaning, as one goes through the books of the Law, is that what is being referred to is premeditated killing of an innocent person. We call this first degree murder.

However there was a passage in Isaiah this morning -- 30:6. The NIV refers here to 'darting snakes,' and they are absolutely wrong! The KJV is much more accurate with "fiery, flying serpents". That is what the words used literally mean. But today we 'know' there was no such thing. Baloney. We don't know that, and the reference and the words used are quite clear, actually. But the translators of the KJV simply didn't have the benefit of profound evolutionary wisdom to help them (yes, that's sarcastic...).

So I recommend, if one is really serious about in depth Bible STUDY, to use more than one version and at least two different Concordances (we like the NIV because it says how many times a word is used and what it is translated as, which we can then look up, and also the Strongs because it gives roots and root meanings).

But if one is simply looking for the spiritual nourishment that comes from fellowshiping with God through His Word, then any of the standard translations is fine!

Whew! Said my piece there....

Helen

 

Just a few words. I have studied the
different translations. I chose the KJV
because its the only bible that does not have
its roots in Egypt.

 

Dear Alex,

You posted...

&gt;&gt;For the welding together of the Old and New Testaments, again, He chose the language that was common to the world in the early 1500's.&gt;&gt;

This seems to be flawed logic.

First where is the chapter and verse for this revelation?

Second, what historic proof do you offer that "early 1500's" English was the so-called "common language of the world?"
Did the Chinese people know this?

Third, Hebrew and Greek were the languages in which the Word of God was originally given and God says His Word will never change.
God ORIGINALLY never gave one Word in English.
Third, even if your premise is true, where was His Word before English became "common"? The only candidate is the Latin Vulgate (or the Greek and Hebrew TR).
Are you saying that the KJV was an inspired translation?
Was the Latin Vulgate? If so, why does it disagree with the KJV in places and even uses Alexandrian readings?

Fourth what of the differences between the several editions of the 1611-1769KJV?

Things not equal to each other are not the same.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grammy:
I chose the KJV
because its the only bible that does not have
its roots in Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False statement. No translations have their roots in Egypt.