How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?

[Conan]

Some people prefer to use stone tools and live in mud huts and believe that anything better is sinful worldliness. Textual criticism of the New Testament, however, is not performed using stone tools nor is it performed in mud huts. Indeed, it is meticulously performed using the very finest and sophisticated tools for studying the text of the New Testament—and it is performed in well-lighted facilities where the researches can actually see what they are doing.

And still come to the wrong conclusions anyways sometimes! Four facilities are better than one. Independent journalism is better than mainstream media bought and payed for.

 

[Craigbythesea]

And still come to the wrong conclusions anyways sometimes! Four facilities are better than one. Independent journalism is better than mainstream media bought and payed for.

I have here in my study several or more recent (less than 25 years old) commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament (including four entire volumes on the Greek text of the 25 verses found in Philemon). These commentaries are not on the NA28, the SBL Greek text, or any other published Greek text, but on the Greek text of the individual book of the New Testament that the commentary is addressing. Altogether, my commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament number in the hundreds and the authors, with no exceptions and working independently of one another, find from their own research that the textual basis of the KJV is severely corrupted. On the other hand, critics of this research are living, with no exceptions, in mud huts and are solely depending upon stone tools.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The Byzantine TR Majority reading is 90.7% of the manuscript evidence. The Orthodox Church text reading is 7.3% of the evidence. The Bibles which omit "but by every word of God," are base on very few manuscripts, a mere 00.4% of manuscript evidence.

This post is blatantly dishonest! The words, “but by every word of God,” have NOT been omitted from any translation of the Bible (it is not possible to omit words that were never there!), but they were added to the KJV—not by God, but by men with less that good educations. Furthermore, the textual basis for there words, although found in many severely corrupted manuscripts, are NOT found in our best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For a list of these many manuscripts, see the textual apparatus found in the NA28.

 

[Conan]

I have here in my study several or more recent (less than 25 years old) commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament (including four entire volumes on the Greek text of the 25 verses found in Philemon). These commentaries are not on the NA28, the SBL Greek text, or any other published Greek text, but on the Greek text of the individual book of the New Testament that the commentary is addressing.

That is a good thing. They should come in handy when discussing textual variants. But they are based on something. Whether they create their own independent Greek Text they are still based on something. There is likely some stone tools in there.

Altogether, my commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament number in the hundreds and the authors, with no exceptions and working independently of one another, find from their own research that the textual basis of the KJV is severely corrupted. On the other hand, critics of this research are living, with no exceptions, in mud huts and are solely depending upon stone tools.

Severely corrupted (mistakes) or some corrupted (mistakes) ? Amazingly the stone huts somehow got things right sometimes ? How can that be?

 

[xlsdraw]

I have here in my study several or more recent (less than 25 years old) commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament (including four entire volumes on the Greek text of the 25 verses found in Philemon). These commentaries are not on the NA28, the SBL Greek text, or any other published Greek text, but on the Greek text of the individual book of the New Testament that the commentary is addressing. Altogether, my commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament number in the hundreds and the authors, with no exceptions and working independently of one another, find from their own research that the textual basis of the KJV is severely corrupted. On the other hand, critics of this research are living, with no exceptions, in mud huts and are solely depending upon stone tools.

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

 

[xlsdraw]

I have here in my study several or more recent (less than 25 years old) commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament (including four entire volumes on the Greek text of the 25 verses found in Philemon). These commentaries are not on the NA28, the SBL Greek text, or any other published Greek text, but on the Greek text of the individual book of the New Testament that the commentary is addressing. Altogether, my commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament number in the hundreds and the authors, with no exceptions and working independently of one another, find from their own research that the textual basis of the KJV is severely corrupted. On the other hand, critics of this research are living, with no exceptions, in mud huts and are solely depending upon stone tools.

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree that minority dies not mean incorrect.

My point here is that what we have does not disagree in terms of doctrine.

I am probably in a minority because I believe that the text we have are copies that were copied from copies of letters written to Christians in order to communicate doctrine.

Any historical evidence of that? I don't know of any.

I do not, therefore, get bent out of shape when one source has Jesus saying "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone" and another has Jesus saying "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God".

I really see that as teaching the exact same doctrine and a difference without distinction.

Again, I am probably in the minority here but I could easily see one congregation noting Luke's letter one way and another congregation either completing the OT quote or leaving it as a reference.

Usually books about supposed contradictions in Scripture will simply point out that both quotes could be correct without contradiction. Each author had his own purpose in the quote.

I could also see a later writer making the quote correspond with Matthew (if they had both at hand).

This, then, becomes a problem of textual criticism.

I believe people forget that these were letters circulated and copied, and copies copied.

Again, I know of no historical proof of the Gospels, say, being originally in the form of letters. The format of a letter is culturally driven. In an English letter (not meaning an email!), the greeting and date come first, with the author's name at the end. In a Japanese letter, all three come at the end. We know the format of first century letters through the epistles of Paul and the many letters in the papyri. The Gospels show no signs of such a format.

More than that, I believe that the early Christians were most concerned with doctrine - with what was said in those letters - than acting as scribes.

I would tend to disagree. Yes, the doctrine was extremely important. However, many manuscripts of the NT have corrections in the margin, showing that many early Christians were indeed very careful about their copies of Scripture. For example, see "The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus" by Jesse R. Grenz in the Tyndale Bulletin, available on the Internet as a PDF.

 

[John of Japan]

And I have recently came across someone who is not just KJV only, but states it is God breathed and trumps the originals.

This is the absurd position of the late Peter Ruckman and his followers. It completely ignores the problem of which version is "inspired" in languages other than English!

 

[37818]

This post is blatantly dishonest! The words, “but by every word of God,” have NOT been omitted from any translation of the Bible (it is not possible to omit words that were never there!), but they were added to the KJV—not by God, but by men with less that good educations. Furthermore, the textual basis for there words, although found in many severely corrupted manuscripts, are NOT found in our best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For a list of these many manuscripts, see the textual apparatus found in the NA28.

You accuse my post as being dishonest. Those percentages came from a Greek New Testament apparatus which provides those percentages and a few other variants within that text. But was not exhaustive. The UBS fifth
edition has some other information. I do not know if the NA28 gives it. The NA26 didn't.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...ment-According-to-Family-35-Third-Edition.pdf

 

[Mikoo]

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful NASB.

 

[Mikoo]

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful NASB

 

[JonC]

Any historical evidence of that? I don't know of any.

Usually books about supposed contradictions in Scripture will simply point out that both quotes could be correct without contradiction. Each author had his own purpose in the quote.


This, then, becomes a problem of textual criticism.

Again, I know of no historical proof of the Gospels, say, being originally in the form of letters. The format of a letter is culturally driven. In an English letter (not meaning an email!), the greeting and date come first, with the author's name at the end. In a Japanese letter, all three come at the end. We know the format of first century letters through the epistles of Paul and the many letters in the papyri. The Gospels show no signs of such a format.


I would tend to disagree. Yes, the doctrine was extremely important. However, many manuscripts of the NT have corrections in the margin, showing that many early Christians were indeed very careful about their copies of Scripture. For example, see "The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus" by Jesse R. Grenz in the Tyndale Bulletin, available on the Internet as a PDF.

We do disagree.

When I say churches circulated and copied letters, I am saying this is my belief.

We were not there and do not have the autographs. I am not aware of any manuscripts even within a decade of the original guesstimate date.

Now, if we are talking 10 years after a letter was written, then I do agree that cate was taken to preserve whatever text was being copied.

But like you, these are my opinions. Neither of us know as fact how the autographs were handled by every church that copied them.

I guess that is why they call these opinions "theories".

What I am interested in are doctrines absent a Bible translation because of their choice of manuscripts.

 

[John of Japan]

We do disagree.

When I say churches circulated and copied letters, I am saying this is my belief.

We were not there and do not have the autographs. I am not aware of any manuscripts even within a decade of the original guesstimate date.

Now, if we are talking 10 years after a letter was written, then I do agree that cate was taken to preserve whatever text was being copied.

But like you, these are my opinions. Neither of us know as fact how the autographs were handled by every church that copied them.

I guess that is why they call these opinions "theories".

What I am interested in are doctrines absent a Bible translation because of their choice of manuscripts.

The difference in our opinions is that I have historical data on my side, as already shown in my post on the actual form of a first century letter. There is no historical data that any of the non-epistolatory books of the NT were ever in letter form on any one of the mss of said books.

 

[JonC]

The difference in our opinions is that I have historical data on my side, as already shown in my post on the actual form of a first century letter. There is no historical data that any of the non-epistolatory books of the NT were ever in letter form on any one of the mss of said books.

I agree there may be no historical evidence that Luke was written in letter form, but I believe Luke wrote it in letter form to Theophilus based on Scripture. The rest of what I was speaking (typing) about is the epistles.

What book of the Bible is the 1st century manuscript you reference?

 

[Craigbythesea]

You accuse my post as being dishonest. Those percentages came from a Greek New Testament apparatus which provides those percentages and a few other variants within that text. But was not exhaustive. The UBS fifth
edition has some other information. I do not know if the NA28 gives it. The NA26 didn't.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...ment-According-to-Family-35-Third-Edition.pdf

Greek texts are merely the starting point for the study of the integrity of the Greek text of a book in the New Testament. Very detailed exegetical commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament include discussions on such issues as:

The quality of the major textual variants,
The sources of the major textual variants
The theological basis of the major textual variants
The theological implications of the major textual variants

Moreover, and very importantly, these commentaries include hundred and even thousands of bibliographical entries for further investigation.

The most comprehensive (2,183 pages) commentary on the Greek Text of Luke is that of Darrell L. Bock published in two volumes (1994, 1996). However, this commentary devotes a large portion of it to exposition and the exegesis is too brief for my liking. On pages 384-385, Bock writes,

Some manuscripts cite the whole of Deut. 8:3 (Bys, A, D, Θ), but the different forms that the longer version of Luke 4:4 has in the manuscript tradition argue against the presence of the longer reading (see UBS on this text.)​

The second most comprehensive (1,703 pages) commentary on the Greek Text of Luke is that of Joseph A. Fitzmyer published in two volumes (1981, 1985). This commentary is devoted to very detailed and technical exegesis. On page 515, Fitzmyer writes that the words, “but by every word of God” are “undoubtedly not original,” but an “addition in some Lucan mss.”

John Nolland, in his three-volume (1989, 1993, 1993) 1,478 page exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Luke writes in a note on page 176, “A number of Greek texts add in various forms the add ional phrase found in Matthew at this point.”

Another excellent exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Luke is that of I. Howard Marshall (1978, one volume, 928 pages). On page 171, Marshall writes, “In many MSS the quotation is completed by the inclusion of Dt. 8:3b, as in Mt. 4:4, but the evidence for omission is decisive….”

There is, of course, the three-volume (1,532 pages) French commentary on Luke by François Bovon in the “Hermeneia” series but I do not own a copy of it.

Whether the applicable data is from Greek texts of the New Testament, commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament, or further, more detailed and comprehensive sources, the data incontrovertibly supports to a very high degree the NA28. To deny this fact is blind foolishness.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree there may be no historical evidence that Luke was written in letter form, but I believe Luke wrote it in letter form to Theophilus based on Scripture. The rest of what I was speaking (typing) about is the epistles.

What book of the Bible is the 1st century manuscript you reference?

All of the epistles of the NT, as well as many non-NT papyri letters. But Luke called the book of Luke a "treatise," not a letter, did he not?

 

[JonC]

All of the epistles of the NT, as well as many non-NT papyri letters. But Luke called the book of Luke a "treatise," not a letter, did he not?

A treatise expressing what he had learned through investigation to another.

For clarification (mine):

Are you saying that Luke should not be a part of Scripture because it is a treatise of his own investigations to Theophilus rather than written by the apostles to whom Jesus said tge Spirit would work?

If so, that isn't something I had considered before. But it is interesting.

 

[John of Japan]

A treatise expressing what he had learned through investigation to another.

Yep.

For clarification (mine):

Are you saying that Luke should not be a part of Scripture because it is a treatise of his own investigations to Theophilus rather than written by the apostles to whom Jesus said tge Spirit would work?

Absolutely not.

If so, that isn't something I had considered before. But it is interesting.

There is a little bit of controversy about that. The Greek word anothen (ἀνωθεν) in Luke 3:1 is usually translated "from the beginning" as in the KJV, but it can also be translated "from above" (cf John 3:31). In his commentary on Luke, Son of Man, John R. Rice argues that it should be "from above" in that verse, showing inspiration rather than investigation. I'm okay with either rendering myself, but either way it is definitely part of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Yep.
Absolutely not.


There is a little bit of controversy about that. The Greek word anothen (ἀνωθεν) in Luke 3:1 is usually translated "from the beginning" as in the KJV, but it can also be translated "from above" (cf John 3:31). In his commentary on Luke, Son of Man, John R. Rice argues that it should be "from above" in that verse, showing inspiration rather than investigation. I'm okay with either rendering myself, but either way it is definitely part of Scripture.

I'm OK with either (if by investigation it is ultimately investigating the first hand accounts of the Apostles).

I think without additional passages or witnesses that I'd side with "investigation".

 

[37818]

Used in the New Testament 13x.
ανωθεν
Matthew 27:51, . . . the top.
Mark 15:38, . . . the top.
Luke 1:3, . . . from the very first.
John 3:3, . . . again.
John 3:7, . . . again.
John 3:31, . . . from above.
John 19:11, . . . from above.
John 19:23, . . . the top.
Acts of the Apostles 26:5, . . . . from the beginning.
Galatians 4:9, παλιν ανωθεν, . . . again.
James 1:17, . . . from above.
James 3:15, . . . from above.
James 3:17, . . . that is from above.