Before The KJV

Down and Out in Paris and London is great also. He had a good sense of humor and used it in this one. Although it's fiction it is partly autobiographical.

I believe he wrote another Coming Up For Air and several short stories (Shooting An Elephant), etc.

HankD

 

I almost wonder if we do not have to start over. One of the things to keep in mind is that while some people who are KJVO will assert the argument about the Word of God being purified 7 times, not all KJVO would assert this.

=======
On the issue of what is conservative and what is liberal, I think those terms should be defined within the context of the debate on Bible versions.

I would define a conservative as a person who believes that the Bible versions that have historically been used by the Christian Church (Protestant/Baptist) - are the Bibles which should be used today.

I would define as a liberal a person who asserts that the Historical context of Bible versions does not matter, but that we should rather give precedence to those who either would use 1. Texts of the Bible that have no Historical Protestant foundation or 2. Texts that have been sold to the Church by Textual Critics who reject the Deity of Jesus Christ and the belief that the Bible accurately reflects the message of God and Jesus Christ.

I do not ask others to agree with me, but those are the definitions I use.

 

So much mis-perception abounds about those who are KJVO that it is hard to know where to start.
One of the myths about KJVO is that they reject versions that came before the KJV. While that may be true of some of them, it is certainly not true of all of them.

An example of this would be the Geneva Bible. While KJVO obviously accept the KJV, often most of them are willing to accept the Geneva Bible, or other Bibles that DID come before the KJV.

The point here is that KJVO is often more of a term used to describe those who condemn modern versions, than it is an accurate reflection of the beliefs in the KJVO camp.

(See the next post).

 

THe question is: IF KJVO are not really KJV Only, then what is the point of the discussion ?

THe point that KJVO - as they are classified - try to make is not that the KJV is the ONLY English Version approved by God (though no doubt some will say that, and there will probably be messages here to prove that).

The point is that the KJVO take the position towards the KJV because they believe it is the Last true Protestant version based on the texts that have historically been used in the Bible.

KJVOs usually affirm that it is not they who have changed the Biblical texts, it is rather Modern Version translators who altered the Greek Manuscripts that were used in Modern Versions.
Many (if not most) KJVOs actually are attempting to fight the good fight by attempting to hold the
historical truths of the Christian Faith, based on the Bible that Protestants have historically used.

At this point, many people will instantly think that I am referring to the King James. But the KJVO position is more complicated than this simplistic approach.

Most KJVO understand that the King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, the standard Greek Text used in the Reformation.

Some may maintain that the English Translations are just as good as the Original Greek. Perhaps they are. What is more to the point is that the Translators of the KJV were absolutely committed to God, the centrality of the Christian Faith, the acceptance of Jesus Christ in ones own life, and to high standards of scholarship.

Also many KJVO people would grant the theoretical premise that another text Could be translated such as the King James. It is theoretically possible, but KJVO people will usually simply tell you, that if you want to start the project, then go ahead and give it a try.

But until there is a version Proven and Demonstrated to be on an equal footing with the KJV, then don't expect anyone to jump ship just yet.

 

The question that I wish to address is:

If the KJVO people are really not KJV only, then where is the standard of the Bible (God's Word), and the applicability of His sovereignty PRIOR to the King James Bible ?

THe answer is: In the other versions that came before the King James, that have been faithfully translated by others who came before the KJV, where the text of the KJV is found to be in agreement ...with those earlier versions.

Again, it sounds as though it may be the KJVO who are anti-historical, but only until we look at the issue in detail.

The fact is that the KJV is the English representation of the Greek Textus Receptus.

What is the Textus Receptus ? It is the Greek Text used to translate the King James Version.

OK.Ok. everybody basically knows that. But there is another point here.

Many people today do not know that the Textus Receptus is simply the text of the Bible that has been received and handed down to the Church, from the time of the Disciples of Christ.

It is called the "Received TExt" (which is what Textus Receptus means), but this is simply another way of saying that it is the Bible.

This is the Text that agrees with 95% of the historical Biblical manuscripts of the Bible in Greek. THese texts agree with each other all over the world in all sorts of other languages, in all sorts of other countries. the KJV was only the Latest version of this text, and Praise God for the King James Version.

There is a myth that those who advocate the KJV and who are against Modern Versions, must somehow be against the versions that came before. That is not usually the case.

The fact is that God preserved his word before the King James Version, and with the King James Version.

Modern Versions - however - will have a much more difficult time finding historical precedent for the manuscripts upon which they decided to base those new versions.

 

WHY ? Why would the KJVOs be able to accept other versions, even if they are based on the Greek Textus Receptus - IF those other versions are not perfectly 100% in agreement with each other ?

For example, why would a KJVO often be willing to accept the Geneva Bible, if the Geneva Bible is not 100% - 100% of the time - identical to the text of the KJV ?

Because of the Alternative option:

There is a far greater affinity and proximity between:

1. The King James Version and

2. The Geneva Bible

Than there ever will be, between

A. The Geneva Bible, and

B. The Modern Versions

-----------------------------


There is a far greater affinity and proximity between:

1. The King James Version and

2. The text of the Luther Bible

Than there ever will be, between

A. The Text of the Luther Bible, and

B. The Modern Versions


=======
Yes, there will be changes between some of these older versions...Yes they will not always agree 100% of the time. But it is far easier to discern and use the Biblical Versions and manuscripts that are among the 98% that Agree with

1. The King James text
2. The Textus Receptus
3. The Greek Manuscripts

Than the Alternative of expective Modern Versions either to be reconciled to:

1. The Greek Manuscripts used by the Church, or
2. Past versions of the Bible used by Protestants.

 

What I am attempting to to is to draw a contrast between 2 sides of the Bible Versions debate:

on the one side:

1. Those who Agree with the Greek Textus Receptus
2. Those who Agree with the King James Version
3. Those who Agree with the Geneva Bible
4. Those who Agree with historical Protestant Bibles
5. Those who Agree with the versions above and the 98% of the Greek Bible Manuscripts - that agree with the Versions above


on the other side:

1. Those who agree & defend modern versions
2. Those who will suggest that the personal life of translators does not matter, and it also is not supposed to matter if they personally rejected Jesus Christ
3. Those who were Modern Translators of the Bible, but who despite their own translation work, did not believe in the Bible that they were translating
4. The Greek Texts underlying and supporting the modern versions of the bible, that DISAGREE with 98% of the Bibles used until the late 1800s.

=======

Now at this point, some Modern Version advocates know that all that remains here, is to present the evidence for each side. It either is true or it is not; it can either be documented or it cannot, and the conclusions can either be supported or they cannot.

======

So SOME (NOT ALL - but SOME) MV advocates will attempt to introduce a Third option.

This would be the 3rd option of something called the "Majority Text".

This is the text that is being presented as the "Alternative" to the Textus Receptus.
It is interesting that the Majority Text advocates, if they were consistent would still have to be much closer to the KJV than they ever will be to the Modern Versions.

But all of this begs the question: Where is this
"Majority Text", and where did it come from ?

The Majority Text is an ARBITRARY NAME given to Greek Texts that disagree with the Greek Texts used to support the Modern Versions.

THere are 2 versions of the Majority Text (of which one is the Hodges/Farstad version).

Even most "Majority Text" advocates believe that a completed survey was done of all of the Greek Bible Manuscripts, and that the "Majority Text"
was the Result of that survey.

I was amazed myself - to find out that this is NOT the case.

The Majority Text is the designation given to a collation (where someone came in and put the Greek Texts that THEY thought - belonged in the Bible) accomplished only around 1911.

It is - specifically - the work of the German Textual Critic VON SODEN. He was not a Christian to the best of my knowledge, and further Never claimed to be.

He collated around 440 manuscripts of the Greek Texts of the Bible. That is right around 10% of what is out there.

In other words, the so called "Majority Text" is based on an analysis by one person (Von Soden) of around ONLY TEN PERCENT of the Biblical Manuscripts that we have and that are available.

This is what the Majority Text of Hodges & Farstad is based on. Before someone affirms to me that this supposed "Majority Text" is the real text of the Majority of Greek Manuscripts, would it be too much to ask that An Actual Majority...of those Biblical Texts be used...to compile a collation of the Manuscripts,

That is going to bear the name "Majority Text" ???

In other words, the so-called Majority Text is nothing of the kind, and makes No claim to be so, at least Von Soden himself did not.

How could he ? He did not use 90% of the Biblical Manuscripts.

Obviously, since this is the case (as Von Soden himself admits), it will come as no surprise that I and others in favor of the traditional Received Greek Text will reject this latest 1911 version,

1. because it was not accomplished by a Christian
2. because the translation left out 90% of the data
3. because I trust in the sovereignty of the Lord and having studied the Ancient Bible Versions, and the manuscripts that they are based on, I have great confidence in God's ability to preserve His Word the Bible.

THe result of this conclusion is that I know that He preserved it in the texts of the Waldensians, in the Text of the Vetus Itala (the latin version before Jerome), and in the Text of the Reformation.


========

Based on the above factors, this takes us back to the point that there are essentially 2 camps within the Bible versions debate:

Those who agree with the Greek Texts, the Textus Receptus, and the KJV,

and

Those who believe and hope that Modern Versions are actually the result of True and accurate scholarship by those who love the Lord Jesus Christ with all of their heart, and who would only use Biblical Manuscripts that they know to be accurate.


The question of which side is in possession of the facts and the documentation, will determine the conclusions that are supposed to be supported.

===

Surfer5

 

Right or wrong, the key to dealing with the issue of Bible Versions and translations - is to understand the history of the Modern Versions themselves.

Those who favor them may have additional basis to defend them, and those who oppose them will have more information to follow up with.

The reason why KJVO often oppose the Modern Versions is because of their contention that there were "at least" 2 levels of problems with the Modern Version translations.

Those 2 levels of problems are:

1. The Manuscripts chosen to use for the Modern Versions, and
2. The Lives and beliefs of the Modern Translators.


The Background of the problem with Modern Versions that depart from the historic Greek Textus Receptus.

-------------------
Short Definitions

For all those not familiar with the terms:

The "Textus Receptus" is the Greek New Testament Text that agrees with:

1. 98 % of Biblical Manuscripts discoverd until now.
2. The Bibles used by Christians all over the world for thousands of years.
3. The closest version in English of the Textus Receptus is the KJV.

The UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Greek Text today that underlies almost all Modern Versions of the Bible in English.

The UBS Nestle-Aland Text is the repackaging of the combined Greek Collations work of 1. Westcott & Hort and 2. Tischendorf.
This New Collation - this new synthesis of this text was done by

A textual critic by the name of Nestle. (His son also worked on this version, and then teamed up with another Textual Critic named Kurt Aland). So the original work of Nestle's text is today
published as the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.

Very few Seminaries used the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament. And very few seminary professors in the USA today know German nor Latin, so they have a hard time investigating what the history of Translations and the Textual Critics - actually is.


=========

Almost all modern versions go back to the Greek Nestle-Aland UBS New Testament.

In turn, the Nestle-Aland bases its Greek Text on primarily the work of two other Greek Texts (both of which are corrupt).

They are
1. The Greek Text of Westcott & Hort and
2. The Greek Text of Tischendorf.

--
In Turn the Greek Texts of Westcott & Hort, and Tischendorf are based on two ancient Codices:

A. The Primary ancient Manuscript that Westcott & Hort base their work on is Codex Vaticanus.

B. The Primary ancient Manuscript that Tischendorf bases his Greek Text is on Codex Sinaiticus.


----

So all that to say that almost all modern Bibles come down to the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek Text, which is based on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

These 2 Greek Codices/Manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticanus) are DIFFERENT from 98% of the rest of the Bible Manuscripts that the Christian Church has had for 2000 years.

Therefore citing 2 ancient manuscripts [codex sinaiticus & vaticanus] which do not even agree with each other, as though they are the best, when they are clearly counterfeit - Even if ALL of the Modern Versions cite them...will do little to improve the accuracy of any assertion which would be based on those texts.


-----

It is often reported that Many More manuscripts have been found since the days of the KJV. That is true. What you have Not been told is that 98% of those found since the KJV continue to agree with the text of the KJV and the Historic Greek Christian Text known as the Textus Receptus.

========

How many changes are there, between the Textus Receptus and the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek Text ?

- More than THREE THOUSAND Changes

(source for this:
you can either count them for yourself, or for more information consult the Revision Revised by John William Burgon, 1883 but since republished).


It is alleged by the advocates of the UBS/Nestle-Aland, that more manuscripts have been discovered since Westcott & Hort were around in the late 1800s. THat is supposed to be information that
bolsters the Nestle Aland text. It doesn't !

Ok. Why Not ?

Because

1. The Nestle Aland text is the SAME TEXT as that Text was, when it came out in 1898 by Nestle (who was working for the German Bible Society, which was an enemy of the Protestant Reformation, having been subverted by more than one hundred years of attack by German Professors/Textual Critics who opposed the Reformation).

- to be more precise, according to the notes in the Nestle-Aland Text itself. There have been ONLY ELEVEN CHANGES, between th e Nestle TExt of 1898 (based on Westcott & Hort & Tischendorf), and the Nestle-Aland text of today.

IN other words, all of those thousands of changes that Nestle made to the Textus Receptus, THey are STILL THERE IN THE MODERN NESTLE ALAND TEXT.

So all of the recovered Greek Manuscripts found in the 1900s made practically No Difference to the Nestle Aland Text.

In other words, Nestle-Aland advocates state that there have been many Greek Manuscripts discovered since the Original Nestle Text of 1898. But what they don't tell you, is that none of that makes any difference (with the exception of Eleven changes out of more than THREE THOUSAND).

 

What are some of the sources used, to support the "KJVO" position, or the Pro-Textus Receptus position ?

There are more, but I will suggest 3:

a. The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell (about the politics of translations and seminaries, such as Fuller - who are not conservative, and who have departed from the premise that the Bible is the Innerant word of God)

b. THe Revision Revised by Professor John William Burgon of Oxford.
560 Pages of accurate info on where Westcott & Hort actually obtained their Greek Text from, what their translation methods actually were, problems with translation committees etc.

c. THe Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede. - 1999 - A Papyrologist explains why the Gospel of John dated to 60 AD is authentic (happens to be part of the Textus Receptus) and why the methods used by Nestle-Aland leave much to be desired (which he covers some, but at least he addresses it)

After reading these sources (if you are able to do that), I do not think that you will conclude that their were innacurate nor untrue (regretably).

 

Wow. I admit I didn't read all of your posts, as I seldom read long posts. But that comment caught my eye. I believe you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. To arrive at the total of "3000", we have to consider *every* textual difference, no matter how minor. The vast majority of these difference are extremely minor, the sort that is present even between editions of the Textus Receptus.

What I get a kick out if is when people make such a big issue out of the differences in the critical text (W/H, etc.), yet forget that other scripture (i.e. the LXX) is MUCH more different from the TR than W/H is, yet historically the Church (including the KJV translators) have accepted it, depsite it's differences and shortcomings, as "the word of God".

P.S. Don't villanize W & H, unless you can back up your statements.

 

Quick question about a W&H quote I just came across. Do you know the context for the following quote:

It gives the impression that they did not beleive in inerrancy. Not that it matters, but would like to know if the quote has been taken out of context.

Andy

 

Info on W & H in a few minutes...

 

I can check the context later this evening, and I'll post the relevant surroundnig text. I don't see how that quote, even without context, indicates a disbelieve in inerrancy (in the original manuscripts), as it seems to be only discussing how errors were introduced to the text during later copying.

I ask that for any quotes, you provide what books/chapter/page/year/etc. you can for each quote, as well as any context you can. Too often, quotes are posted on this forum without any reference, context, or any way to verify them. I am the resident W/H defender, and have a fairly large collection of their books, and I don't plan on letting you get away with too much.

Have you read any of their books, or are you just going to cut/paste out-of-context "massaged" quotes from pro-KJV-only sites and materials?

Brian

 

- That seems ok to me.

I have researched W & H myself a great deal.

As you claim to be well versed on W & H, I will hold you to that standard. Have you done any research on the Cambridge Apostles ? Do you know if they had any say or influence in the RV translation ? Do you know the context within the Anglican Church in the 1800s, when many Anglicans were attempting to return to the Catholic Church, under the direction of the Oxford Movement ?
Do you know the relationship between the Oxford Movement (Pusey et al) and W & H ?

Are you familiar with the work of PRofessor James Webb about the Anglican & British establishment at the time of W & H:

1.The Occult Establishment

2. The occult Underground

(both by James Webb) ?


Surfer5

 

Thanks for the quotes, I will address them later when I get home to my library. I don't have "Life and Letters" of either of them (I'm currently trying to secure a copy of each), but I have the other books.

I have researched W & H myself a great deal.
</font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't really answer my question. Read any of their books, or are you just cutting and pasting slander?

I have to answer "no" to all your questions. I only collect books by W/H themselves, and read what they themselves have to say. I am very wary to base my opinion on someone by what someone else has to say about them, for I do not know that person's motives.

 

1. Just because someone is cutting and pasting, would not mean that it is slander.

The issue of whether it is slander has to do with the truth of the claim or the quote. It does not have to do with the motive of the person who is cutting and pasting.

2. I have read both Westcott & Hort.

 

Do you apply that same standard to...Napoleon
or to George Washington, or to Spurgeon ?

Are you saying that just because authors do have biases, that this means that the accurate historical record cannot be arrived at, therefore we should not seek to know the truth about Westcott & Hort, if they did not come out and say it themselves ?

I will look forward to your answer about Napoleon.

 

True. But it has been my experience that on this particular issue, it is more often than not.

I was not calling your motivation into question. I call into the question the motivations of the person who originally dug out the quotes, for 99 times out of 100 the immediate context clearly shows that the "quote" is presented as trying to make it look like W/H said the exact opposite of what they believed.

I don't mean to be blunt, but I find that a little hard to believe. If you had, you would know that they were doctrinally sound (as much as any Anglican, at least), repeatedly affirmed the deity of Christ, etc. You see, I used to be shocked by the "quotes" I read on the internet that people posted, had on their websites, etc. So I bought a couple of their books to *see for myself*. I was very soon and very greatly impressed with them, and started rebutting those who post "quotes" from them.

Absolutely. Although I don't really care much about finding out about Napolean, nor can I fluently read French even if I was. The primary source to find out about someone is to *read their own writings*, rather than what someone else says about them.

No, why do you keep asking if I'm saying something? All I'm saying is that if you want to really know if W and H were doctrinally sound or not, then read their books, and minimize second-hand and third-hand information from obviously biased sources. Simple.