Rev 1:6 and the Majority Text

Amen to that

 

I love the diatribe that suggests that non-KJVO people believe in some weak, powerless God that is more helpless than helpful. How about a round of applause for such comments.

On the flip side, it is the KJVO people that have to face that charge. What? You mean to tell me that God was not able to preserve his word until 1611, 1612, 1762, 1769, or any other correction of the so-called, inspired KJV.

Out unlike the practice of some to play with unlearned peoples' mind.

 

There is no one like that here, so your comments are meaningless.

However, do you take God at his word in that you believe there was a FINAL AUTHORITY in 1605? It seems to me that *KJV-Onlies* are the one with a problem with what God says.

 

Larry posts: "Who here has said that God didn't preserve his word????? I have seen that from anyone. To the contrary we believe that God did preserve his word and we do have a final authority. Our final authority has been available for 2000 years of church rather than only 400.
It seems you must admit that God preserved his word in over 5000 manuscripts, all of them different from each other. The KJV is a representative of 8 of those 5000+ manuscripts."

Larry, How can your "final authority" consist of 5000 differing manuscripts, each different from the other? This is a strange view that you have.

So, when you have completely different readings or a whole verse found in some of these mss. and not in the others, who decides if or which is God's word? It seems you decide for yourself, or you trust other scholar-priests who likewise disagree among themselves.

Why did you say the KJV is representative of 8 of those 5000? You should know this is not true. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the evidence? You are probably referring to the Erasmus text, but you should be aware that the KJB translators used not only Erasmus, but also Stephens and Beza's texts as well as having access to many other Greek manuscripts. Besides that, most of the manuscripts discovered since then agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott-Hort text used in the NASB, NIV, RSV.

I believe it is your view of preservation that is man centered and naturalistic. Sure, you have to use the religious phrase "God preserved His words", but when pressed to tell us Where these preserved words are, you give us the vague answer that they are out there somewhere mixed up among the relatively few remaining divergent and in some cases radically different manuscripts that must be sorted out by the scholars.

I agree there are some bibles that are closer than others and these would be what your part refers to as "reliable translations". In my opinion these would be other translations primarily based on the same Hebrew and Greek as found underlying the KJB, such as the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Geneva or Tyndale.

However I believe there is a pure preservation of the correct texts and meaning as God promised. It is found in the English language in the Bible God has been pleased to honour and use a hundred times more than any other - The King James Bible.

There are obvious theological errors in all the modern versions which show them to be false witnesses.

Regarding the oft repeated accusation against the Erasmus text that it was based on only 7 or 8 Greek copies, I highly recommend this article which should dispel the clouds of ignorance concerning this error.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

Will

 

LRL 71 posts: "Let me ask this to KJVO's: Why is it so important to have '100%' of the Bible when we already have been able to comprise 99.9% certainty without the originals? "

LRL, I think you have been reading too much Josh McDowel or however you spell his name.

Even James White says the N.T. alone is 2-3% different. Others who have actually counted the textual variations between the Westcott-Hort text and the underlying TR of the KJB tell us the difference is over 5000 words and makes up 7% in just the N.T. Most of these are omissions and a few are additions. This is like removing all 5 chapters of 1 Peter and changing every word of Jude.

The NIV omits 17 whole verses from the N.T. and about a third of another 50. The NASB keeps changing from one edition to the next, sometimes including the verses then excluding them, and changing its text from one to the next. The RSV eliminates even more than the NIV. And all of these (NIV, NASB, RSV) change scores of passages by rejecting the Hebrew readings in the O.T. and not always in the same places.

Your new versions do have serious theological differences. Pick one you think is a "reliable" translation (NIV, NKJV, NASB, RSV etc.) and we can discuss them.

The new versions debase Christ, teach He has origins, downgrade sexual sins, teach we can speed up God's timetable, God can be deceived, have several obvious contradictions (not just apparent) and contradict each other in scores of verses. How can God's inerrant, pure, infallible word contain real and not just apparent contradictions?

I suggest you read the other post about Calvinism and the KJB. There they are all supposedly translating the same texts but they come up with entirely different meanings. The meanings of the new versions are contradictory in nature to other parts of Scriptures. Defend them if you can.

>>>You should wonder why God allowed errors to enter into the transmission of the Bible text..... and perhaps wonder why God didn't say that He would preserve the original manuscripts, or even that He would preserve the reading of the original manuscripts in the transmission of the Bible text...... If the KJV-onlyist says that God must have preserved the Bible text exactly like the original manuscripts, where does God say this? (answer: NOWHERE!) >>>

How about this-

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

God testifies through Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

"For the LORD is good: his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25

>>>KJV-onlyists still have not proven without any shadow of a doubt that their KJV (or the TR) is a document that reads exactly like the original manuscripts read!<<<

LRL, there is no way to do this for your side of this issue either. We who believe what the Bible says about itself place our faith in the God of the Bible to do what He said He would do. We can eliminate the fake modern bibles because they do have proveable errors. They appear on the scenc for a little while and then disappear into oblivion - just like the RV, ASV, RSV and the fast disappearing NASB.

In His grace,

Will

 

Will, where was the perfectly preserved, infallible inerrant, "final authority" "word of God" in 1605? Why did the KJV correct it?

 

Name ONE!

 

Will J. Kinney,

I am a Geneva Bible Believer. You King James Version is a modern perverstion that added to and subtracted to the perfect Word of God perserved by God himself. God didn't wait until 1611 to preserve it but already had in its perfect form in the Geneva Bible. The King James Bible was made by the Pope, abortion doctors, and your Anglecan (not baptist) Bible Correcting "Scholars". I can show you where you KJV is wrong simply by comparing it verse to verse to my straight stick perfect preserved Geneva Word of God. God is not a liar and he didn't create two Bibles. He made the Geneva Bible and what is good enough for Him is good enough for me!

 

Hi Jim, you posted: "WILL You need to get your facts straight! There is a translation from the Majority text, it is from J P Green and it is called the Literal Bible and I have a copy, and it uses the Majority text from the Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the most accurate translation out there today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, are you referring to J.P. Green's King James II version, 1980 edition text of N.T. from the Trinitarian Bible Society?

If so, I too have a copy and it is not the "majority text". It is the Greek text that underlies the King James Version. There is no consensus as to what the so called Majority text is. There are several competing editions. To my knowledge Green does not employ the "majority text" as you claim.

Will

 

Hi Brian, you asked a very common question.

Will, where was the perfectly preserved, infallible inerrant, "final authority" "word of God" in 1605? Why did the KJV correct it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please excuse the length of my response, but I think you will find it of interest.

God bless

Where was the word of God before 1611 and where is it today?


Those who promote the modern bible versions do not believe any Bible is the inspired, infallible, preserved, and pure words of the living God. They piously tell us "the original Hebrew and Greek" is their final authority, hoping no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth. They don't have it, have never seen it, and wouldn't recognize it if it fell on their heads.

There are no original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts anywhere. There are several different Hebrew texts plus the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls. There are over 20 different conflicting Greek texts. The multitude of modern versions, like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, depart scores of times from the Hebrew masoretic texts, and often not in the same places. They are also based on very different Greek texts than that of the King James Bible, though none of them always follows the same Greek text as the others. The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek text as the KJB and the meaning has been radically changed in scores of verses. They often differ among themselves in both text and meaning, and contain several proveable theological errors.

We who believe God meant what He said about preserving His words are ridiculed as ignorant, backwater fanatics. We believe God is the sovereign ruler of history and has preserved for us today all His pure words in the King James Bible. God knew what would become of the English language and how the great modern missionary movement of the late 1700's through the 1950's would be carried out by American and English missionaries carrying one Bible and translating it into hundreds of foreign languages and dialects. No Bible in history has been used, honored and hated as much as the King James Bible. The King James Bible was even read outloud from space as the astronauts orbited the moon.

God also knew the great battle concerning the preservation of His words would take place during the times of the falling away from the faith before the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are living in those times now. Never before has the Holy Bible itself been under such fierce attack. The supreme irony is that those who now attack the Bible are those who bear the name of Christians.

They cannot believe that God in fact preserved His words in the one Book that has been used and blessed by God a hundred times more than any other. History and the sovereignty of God bear witness that the King James Bible is that one Book, without proven error.

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

God testifies through Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

"For the LORD is good: his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25

We who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not place our trust in the King James translators. We do not defend their comments in the Preface, nor their theology, though I agree with much of it. We trust in God alone Who has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inspired words. He just happened to use the believing men of the 1611 Holy Bible as His instruments to continue this preservation.

They were not perfect nor without error in themselves. Just as God used Peter, though he denied the Lord and even later separated himself from the Gentile believers and was to be blamed for his actions, (See Galatians 2:12-14) or Paul who was about to offer another blood sacrifice to appease the Jewish law-keepers in Acts 21:26, or John who twice fell down to worship an angel and was rebuked for it (See Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). God always uses imperfect vessels for His glory; if He didn't, nothing would ever get done.

Those who promote today's multiple, conflicting perversions of God's words think they finally have the question that will stump the Bible believer and finally rob him of his faith in God's inerrant word. They ask us, "Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"

It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask them the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611 either, or more importantly, where it is now. An educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words passed over to what was named simply The Holy Bible, later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.

We have only a very small portion remaining of all the Bibles and manuscripts that ever existed. Perhaps as little as one one hundreth, so there is no sure way of knowing what the other manuscripts and Bibles said - just as we do not have the "originals" and can't prove what they said. Of those that remain, no two are exactly alike in every detail, but of the approximately 5,000 portions and fragments that we have today, about 95% agree about 99% of the time with the King James Bible readings. The other 5% differs a great deal even among themselves, and it is this 5% that is used in most of today's "bibles".

It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has preserved His words, then how can you believe He will preserve your soul?

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith.
In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.

The new version promoter and King James basher has no final authority but his own mind or his favorite scholar-priest to tell him what God probably said. He has no infallible Bible and doesn't want you to have one either. He can't tell you where you can get a copy of God's pure words today, let alone where they were before 1611. "Thus saith the LORD" has been replaced with "Well, how does this version render it?"

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney

 

Hi Scott, you posted: "There are obvious theological errors in all the modern versions which show them to be false witnesses.
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name ONE!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott, I can name many more than one. It would help some if you could limit this to just one of your favorite versions, since they all disagree with each other in scores of verses and some are worse than others. So tell me if you want false theological blunders to be pointed out in the NKJV, NASB, NIV or whatever. Limit it to just one.

In an attempt to accomodate you for now, I will point out an error in all three, OK?

Deuteronomy 32:5

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV and NAS “bibles”. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?”

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughters”. They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

God’s children did corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they received belonged to the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of the chapter shows.

Now look at the NKJV in verse 5. “They have corrupted themselves: They are not His children, Because of their blemish.” The NAS is similar with its: “They are not His children because of their defect”. Both these versions tell us they are not His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they are His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

The NIV is even worse with its: “to their shame they are no longer his children”. This teaches the vile doctrine that one can be a child of God and then lose it and no longer be His child, yet verse 6 and 19 still refer to them as His children!

These are obvious false doctrines and contradictions. Other versions that agree with the KJB in verse 5 as teaching they are still His children are Darby, Youngs, Spanish, Italian Diodati, Hebrew-English of 1917, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJV 21st century version, and the NRSV of 1989.

Will

 

Hi Scott J, >>>I know for a fact that "God's words" are not in any translation. God's words were in the originals.>>>

And then according to your view, since God's words WERE in the originals, and we do not have those, and you also say you know for a fact that God's words are not in any translation, then you have no inspired, infallible Bible. Correct? That is just what I have been saying your naturalistic view of things leads you too.


I posted: "These "several good translations" all differ from each other in both text and meaning in scores of verses."

You then answered:
------------------------------------------------------------------------This statement simply brings us back to the challenge made so many times before that KJVO's always fail to meet... to name one doctrine taught by the KJV that is not taught in good MV's.>>

I have a couple for you. The new versions pervert several true doctrines, but for now I will ask you: Does the NIV teach that fornication is a sin?

For the second one, The King James Bible does NOT teach that there is such a thing as ghosts of men here on this earth. Such a teaching has serious theological implications.

The NKJV, NIV and NASB all teach that there really is such a thing as ghosts, referring to the departed spirits of men roaming around on this earth after they have died. Is this correct doctrine?

Will

 

Will, thank you for proving my point. I recently told Pastor Bob that you would dance around the question, and your lengthy post that had little to do with my question was basically what I was expecting.

Your "response" was also full of misrepresentations. I quoted an interesting comment above, where you admit you don't know where the perfect word of God was before 1611. However, you say "they don't know where it was before 1611 either" - that is wrong, we do.

Will, it is amazing to me that you cannot understand the simple logic involved in the question. If the perfect infallible inerrant word of God existed in 1605, the KJV should not have corrected it. If the "final authority" was already in another publication, it really wasn't so "final" after all. You mention Old Latin Bibles, Waldensian latinized Bibles and Theodore Beza. None of these match the KJV 100%. I guess either you believe God's word change, or God was lying before 1611. I can see no other conclusion from you long-winded post.

 

My question to you is why did the translators of the MV's feel the need to "correct" the KJV?(the RSV preface STATES that the KJV is full of GRAVE errors.) Bible correctors acuse the KJV translators of"adding to the word of God" but how can they justify the "removing" of verses & parts of verses(Jeremiah chap 36) in the *better* bibles?? The problem of the word of God in 1605 is simple;the Geneva bible. The Geneva bible came from the same text the KJV came from;just like the MV's come from the CORRUPT North African text(s) prepared by Gnostics & Philosphers(Origen & CO.) Of course, if a person don't believe we NEVER had or will have God's word, that could be a problem to them.My question is HAVE WE ever or will we ever have the WORD of GOD??? Then it would seem that the Bible rejectors/correctors are doing a little "two stepping" themselves..

[ October 27, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]

 

My question to you is why did the translators of the MV's feel the need to "correct" the KJV?(the RSV preface STATES that the KJV is full of GRAVE errors.)

</font>[/QUOTE]You have answered you own question. Because the translators believed the KJV was not perfect.

Because of textual evidence. Stop pretending you don't know this. Just like the KJV "removes" half of Psa 145:13, part of Acts 4:25, half of Jude 1:25, etc.

Ah! Finally someone *tries* to answer the original question! Unfortunately, this answer is in conflict with KJV-onlyism, because the Geneva and the KJV are not the same. If the Geneva was "the word of God" as KJV-onlyists define it, then the KJV should not have "corrected" it! If the "pure words" already existed, why change it??? Your answer is correct, but it also disproves KJV-onlism!!!!

For the umpteenth time, YES WE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD. Some famouse Bible "rejectors/correctors" said: "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession,...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

 

Again,for the umpteenth time, The term KJVO was coined by [those] who despise the FACT that WE Bible Believers KNOW what our final authority is;I would trust anything from the MT/TR. The Geneva & the KJV are from the same textual line,like begats like; just like the deity rejecting, blood denying,pro-science,pro-philosophy, modern "bibles" that come from the very text that the RCC bibles come from; straight from a bible rejecting,castrated(Matt 19:12)Philosopher/Gnostic, from Alexandria,Egypt;then W&H(closet RCC-ers) again dropped the ball to bring US the People a *better* translation . Because of the OBVIOUS,I would say it is time to also stop pretending..

[ October 28, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

KJVONLY, maybe you are not understanding the point. Here, let's talk specifics:

Mark 15:3
---------
(KJV) "And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing."
(Geneva) "And the high Priests accused him of many things."

Luke 17:37
----------
(KJV) "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
(Geneva) [not present]

John 8:6
--------
(KJV) "This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."
(Geneva) "And this they said to tempt him, that they might have, whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground."

James 4:6
----------
(KJV) "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
(Geneva) "But the Scripture offereth more grace and therefore faith, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble."

1 John 2:23
-----------
(KJV) "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
(Geneva) "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

I can supply more, but I think the point is now painfully obvious. In each example listed above, which reading is the perfect inerrant infallible words of God, and which is not so perfect?

 

Sorry Will you do not have you facts straight.
The bible I am speaking about is The Interlinear Bible copyright 1985. The Hebrew is Masoretic text.
In the preface it says that it differs from the RT many times. It includes all variable readings from the manuscripts available today with percentages of occurance. This makes it the only Bible that inc. the majority of extant manuscripts. I used to be a KJVO untill I sat down with the RT the MT and the CT. I spent many many hours studying the differances between them and there is not one DOCTRINE that is compromised!
I also spent much time going over the changes in the NKJV and find it to be more accurate than the KJV. I now use the NKJV for all my reading unless Im studying something in depth then I use the greek MT. I have also spent much time checking out ALL the (errors)so called ,in the NKJV by people like Gail Riplinger. I have found out that she is a LIAR and a deceiver and I question her motives. I feel she is cashing in on people that like the KJV and need moral support to make them feel good. I have problems with the CT and with the form of translation of the NIV, but we need to spend much time studying the texts and less time trying to prove our points from our lack of KNOWLEDGE.

Yours IN CHRIST JIM

 

Will I just had to ask you do you understand Greek or Hebrew. I think that you would be best to argue your point from the original, Greek or Hebrew texts so many of your doctrinal points would not have errors in them!
Just trying to help out a Byzantine Brother.