Greek Sources for AV1611

Someone asked a similar question awhile back on another forum, about Erasmus' manuscripts, and I provided this link. The page is actually a post to the B-GREEK mailing list, but he does cite his own sources, one of whom is Kurt Aland.

 

But you failed to mention that the new "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING versions)had to borrow from Erasmus'Greek text also.Erasmus got those readings from the Old Latin;the Old Latin came from Antiochan mauscripts(Acts 13).In fact,one paticular Greek manuscript,Vaticanus(Revelation 17),does not even contain the book of Revelation;this is the manuscript that underlies the "new easier to read bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING versions).

Really though,I shouldn't have to tell you all of this,I'm sure you already know it.


Oh P.S. All "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING versions)from 1881 on,hail from "eclectic blended Greek text."

 

But A-A,

Everything is conflicting, whether the five used for the translational basis of the KJV or the 5000 used to distill out this five. The several TR's of Elzivir, Beza and Stephanus also in conflict, resolved by Scrivener in 1894 when he produced a "Textus Receptus" (a further distillation) in harmony with the latest revision of the KJV (1853 I believe).

Also, the KJV itself conflicts within its own scope from 1611 to the 1800's in the various revisions and publications.

I hope you can see that your voice is only one representative of several who are sincerely trying to deal with this issue of the preservation of the text of Scripture.

It would appear that part of your venue is to ignore the fact that the KJVO have all the same problems that the so-called "alexandrians" have with "conflicts" (things which are different are not the same) and "trustworthiness" of the translators.

I know this sounds like the proverbial "broken record" (you may not know what that means depending on how old you are), but again, as to conflicts, the 1611KJV differs from the 1769KJV in hundreds of places.

As to the trustworthiness of the translators:
The KJV was translated and "authorized" by the Church of England (with heretical doctrine by many Baptists definition and distinctives) and persecutors of our Baptist and Dissenter forefathers.

In addition, no KJVO has yet dared to address the issue of : What does this "auhorization" mean in terms of the Church of England to whom the KJVO ascribe with the apostolic authority of the re-"Inspiration" of the Scriptures?

Is the Anglican Catholic Church now or was it ever the True Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ?

If not, why not, since, the KJVO de facto ascribe to it the foundational element of this authority: the INSPIRATION of the Scripture?

But, if it is so, why then are you a Baptist?

HankD

 

But what??

The KJB was "distilled" out of that five;so what??

Only in your mind and the mind of those who taught you that bull.

Again,this is a dishonest assertion that has been proven to be a BAO hoax.

Again,for clairification,I am concerned with the PRODUCT they produced.

What does that have to do with the finished product?? I mean,if most BAOs have a problem with "baptize" in the AV,why do they call themselves Baptist?? Why not immersionist??

By conviction my friend.

 

But you failed to mention that the new "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING versions)had to borrow from Erasmus'Greek text also.</font>[/QUOTE]Which ones? Where? Specifics, please.

No, the Old Latin did *not* come from the "Antiochian manuscripts." The Old Latin was the popular text of the Latin-speaking West, and is characterised by textual wildness in the form of paraphrases and additions not found in *any* Greek copies.

BTW, Acts 13 says absolutely nothing about "Antiochian manuscripts."

These are misleading comments.

(1) Vaticanus doesn't have the Book of Revelation in its original hand today because that part of the MS broke off and was lost. However, Vaticanus *does* have the Book of Revelation added in a later minuscule hand, but this portion of the book is classified as a separate MS (Gregory number 1957).

(2) Vaticanus is not the only MS that underlies the Greek text behind many of the newer versions. The NA/UBS Greek text is based on *all* the avaliable MS evidence, and frequently departs from Vaticanus.

So do all the conflicting versions of the English Bible (including the conflicting versions of the KJV) from 1516 to 1880, albeit to a lesser degree.

 

Giving the foundation from which all "modern bibles(ad nauseam)" were built upon,we(the King James Bible believers) have come to these conclusions:

1)"The Greek text" of Vaticanus does not even have Revelation 22 in it.

2)The Sinaitic text of Revelation 22:14 reads "wash their robes."

3)Now with the second example in mind,we see that it is the official reading of the Roman Catholic Church(1582) as seen here:
Revelation 22:14-Douay-Rheims."Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.


With that example,have a look @ these:


1)Revelation 22:14(NIV)."Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

2)Revelation 22:14(NASb)

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city."


3)Revelation 22:14(ESV)"Blessed are those who wash their robes,so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."


"All roads lead to Rome,"so I'm told..

 

The new King James Version,
condemned for the NON-TRANSLATION
"devil's paw print" on the title page,
has "wash their robes" only
in the footnote.

The nKJV was a new translation made
about 1985 with the objections to MVs,
made by the KJVonlyists, well in mind.
So the nKJV can't be condemned for using
the KJVl-Greek source. So it is condemned
for other reasons (like footnoting non-KJV-Greek
sources). Can any body spell
DOUBLE STANDARD?

 

Dear A-A,

Apparently you simply deny the facts which have been proven over and over again and several of which have posted over and over again such as the conflicting versions of the KJV from 1611 to 1850.

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

One difference is enough to make things which are different "not the same".

It has everything to do with the finished product.
Either the King James English Bible (every "JOT" and "TITTLE") is re-inspired by the Holy Spirit or it is not. If it is why then did the translators revise it several times after the "re-inspration" in 1611.

For instance why did the "revisers" change
the 1611 passage of Ruth 3:15 from "...and he went into the citie" to "...and she went into the city" ?

Was God confused about who went into the city or the translators?

IMO, Your questions about the word "baptise" is simply a smoke-screen evasion of my questions directed to KJVO concerning the Anglican Catholic Church to whom God granted apostolic power as to re-inspire the Scripture in a new language (or so they claim).

A church just inches away (theologically) from the Church of Rome with their own versions of auricular confession, celibacy of priests and nuns (in 1611) their own version of the mass (Latin in 1611 BTW), their own form of baptismal regeneration (paedo-baptism)and several non-canonical books included in their Bible and daily devotions and not the least of all the blood of our fore-father Baptists and Dissenters on their hands.

HankD

 

Click here to read this excellent article on this subject:IS THE RECEIVED TEXT BASED ON A FEW LATE MANUSCRIPTS?

Proverbs 22:20-21 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Amen!

 

Why is this website that you wrongly picked up?

 

Bob, you know better! Are you one of naturalistic groups against most MSS supporting the KJV THAN modern versions?

 

True - because of their copyright.

 

Dear askjo,

Could you eloborate on what you mean by this question?

Thanks.

HankD

 

So... it means that the KJV was not inspired nor was it the perfect preservation of anything that came before it. If it was "distilled" from a few conflicting mss, your argument defeats itself.

Only in your mind and the mind of those who taught you that bull. </font>[/QUOTE] So there were no revisions or changed words? You are actually using an AV1611?

Denying straight forward, documented fact would be a terrible testimony to someone's view of truth.

 

As is typical with Cloud, he engages in irrelevant character assassination to get a desired emotional impact against "modernisitic" scholars and even non-TRO, majority text advocates.

His article is filled with half-truths. Burgon opposed W&H's methods. He did not claim perfection for the TR, much less the KJV. His willingness to distort the opinions of Burgon does not testify well to his honesty when describing the positions of more obscure scholars.

It is amusing to see Cloud contradict his own claim in the article. He begins by denying that Erasmus only had a few mss when he collated the TR then goes right on to acknowledge that this was in fact true. Erasmus' knowledge of other things is not relevant to the question. The question is what documents did he rely on.

One thought does come to mind though. If Erasmus had in fact had access to all of this other info either to begin with or during revision, why would he leave the back translated Vulgate text in Revelation 22? Could it be because of his high regard for the text of the Pope's approving?

Erasmus had an incentive to not allow his text to deviate greatly from the Vulgate. The Vulgate was the traditional text of his time and location. Any effort to create a Greek text that differed significantly from the Vulgate would have been squashed.

Regardless of whether he knew or had seen more ancient evidence or not, there would have been no practical way of publishing a text that conflicted with RCC tradition and rule.

[ October 20, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I would have thought you could find somone a little better to "champion" your cause;I saw where he was supposed to be able to "prove ten errors in the AV";what a joke!! He couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel...

 

OK, lets take one instance - what about Ruth 3:15 is it "he" or "she" who went into the city?

Things which are different are not the same.
If you allow for one difference and claim the 1611 and 1769 KJV are the same why not 2 or 200?
Where do you draw the line, who decides where the line is?

But what is more important:
Who is confused here? the Spirit of God or the 1611/1769 translators?

HankD

 

Dear askjo,

Could you eloborate on what you mean by this question?

Thanks.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I mean that you picked up a wrong website.