Can you explain to me how you can dismiss the “textually-corrupt” Latin Vulgate while embracing translations based on a text that heavily relies on the extremely textual corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
How do you know that they were "so corrupted?"
"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).
What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,
"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus]
Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm
https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/
I still am waiting to see those areas where the CT butchered any doctrines/beliefs of christianity though, and where modern translation off of it have!
I agree the longer ending is probably canonical but there is a bit more to the story. Minuscule 304 (12th century) omits verses 9 and following, the Syriac Sinaiticus translation dated from the late 4th-century, omits the longer ending, and the Sahidic manuscript omits it.
Codex Bobiensis, a 4th or 5th century Latin manuscript adds a longer, but different, ending.
Six Greek manuscripts add the "shorter ending" after 16:8 then has traditional ending of 9–20. These manuscripts are Codex L (019), Codex Ψ (044), Uncial 083, Uncial 099, minuscule 274 (marginal correction), minuscule 579, and lectionary 1602.
Codex Washingtonianus, dated to the late 4th or early 5th century, includes verses 9–20 and adds verses between verses 14-15 known as the "Freer Logion."
The Patristic, Irenaeus included the long ending sometime around 150 AD, fully 175-200 years before the theory that it was added sometime after 350 AD.
In my opinion the evidence supports it being part of the canon.
Codex Bobiensis, a 4th or 5th century Latin manuscript adds a longer, but different, ending.
Six Greek manuscripts add the "shorter ending" after 16:8 then has traditional ending of 9–20. These manuscripts are Codex L (019), Codex Ψ (044), Uncial 083, Uncial 099, minuscule 274 (marginal correction), minuscule 579, and lectionary 1602.
Codex Washingtonianus, dated to the late 4th or early 5th century, includes verses 9–20 and adds verses between verses 14-15 known as the "Freer Logion."
The Patristic, Irenaeus included the long ending sometime around 150 AD, fully 175-200 years before the theory that it was added sometime after 350 AD.
In my opinion the evidence supports it being part of the canon.
It is simply false that no doctrines are affected, the individual teachings of many verses are weakened, or changed in many places because of the critical text. I don’t see anywhere that the Bible describes or separates “major” doctrines from “minor or “non essential” doctrines.
Doctrines are definately affected and at the very least weakened: here are some examples
Matthew
5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
17:21 Whole verse is left out. Sanctification to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.
19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A woman who divorces her husband and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.
Mark
6:11 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" is removed from the text. This passage emphasizes the great degree of responsibility that was upon those cities who heard the Lord's apostles as they preached repentance and worked miracles before them. Sodom and Gomorrah did not have such light, yet they are still suffering the eternal wrath of God (see Jude 7 where "suffering" is in the present tense). How much more the judgment of America today where people sit in an abundance of complete revelation from God and choose to remain in darkness.
https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/docchang.htm
Secondly since when are only the “major” doctrines of Gods word the only thing important? Jesus said man shall live by EVERY word of God, he did not say man shall live by every doctrine.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Careful research and the research of others has convinced me of my stand, but in here and elsewhere, it's every man for himself, it seems.
Gentlemen, use what you are persuaded to use. With respect, I'm not getting stuck on the "upgrade" path.
I have the word of God in my hand...it's called the "King James Version". In its day, it was called the "Authorized". It was the singularly finest of its time, and for me, it is the word of God in my language.
They were "editions" to correct spelling in the English...they did not affect the actual words. I do not consider those changes in the words themselves.
This is my last post in this thread because I feel that there is nothing more that I can say. I don't feel the necessity of re-publishing all the findings out there in support of the AV, so I'll simply list what I feel is a good source of a brother's hard work. He can be a little passionate at times, but I think his research is solid:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
May God bless you.
I can confirm that no doctrine of the Christian faith is removed from the commonly used modern versions.
There are some guidelines that seem to have been weakened, as Jordan points out, above, being angry and being angry without a cause seem to be different statements.
Also it seems to me that many of the modern versions which lack Acts 8:37 also lack the requirement for baptism that a person should believe with all his heart.
There are some guidelines that seem to have been weakened, as Jordan points out, above, being angry and being angry without a cause seem to be different statements.
Also it seems to me that many of the modern versions which lack Acts 8:37 also lack the requirement for baptism that a person should believe with all his heart.
Your question assumes something that is not true. Why would I need to explain something that is not true?
I have not embraced nor recommended the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the Critical text, or English translations made from them.
KJV-only advocates do not apply the same exact textual measures to the actual few Greek NT manuscripts used in the making of the textually-varying TR editions and to the Latin Vulgate that they assert concerning Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
They seem to choose to remain uninformed or misinformed about all the actual textual differences including some significant ones found in the few Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus.
You have been misinformed concerning KJV editions. Your claim is simply not factually true.
I have checked out claims of others, and I have also examined the evidence myself. The results of my research comparing the 1611 edition and a present KJV edition have been published.
There were many actual changes which did affect the actual words. As I already pointed out, over 140 whole words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were added in many later editions. At Eccl. 8:17, six words are added in later KJV editions. At nine verses, three words are added. At eighteen verses, two words are added. In over eighty verses, one whole word is added. Some whole words found in the 1611 edition of the KJV are omitted in most present KJV editions. Over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 edition are changed in later editions.
Again, there are NO major doctrines affected/changed/altered between the Kjv/Nkjv/Nas/Esv etc!
there are some passages where the Modern versions got it better than Kjv, such as when linkinh jesus and God as being same being described, and not 2 seperate persons, and also in areas such as casting out demons by prayer and fasing, and where it stated that one gets victory by being in the spirit, and not needing to add that part about the flesh.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Y1,
I'm not interested in how many doctrines have been unaffected; I'm interested in whether or not God's words have been preserved for me in my own language. Again, words affect doctrines...but that's not the worst of it:
Someone is changing adding or leaving out inspired and preserved words when I compare the newer translations to the KJV, and casting doubt on what exactly God said. The train really started rolling about 200 years ago, give or take...before that, it was a matter of accuracy and getting the best...but not anymore, IMO.
I already know what's behind it. It's very complicated, but easy to see when the details coalesce.
Money...
Beaucoup de l'argent...
Mucho dinero...
"Filthy lucre" in the KJV.
Comment:
With the newer translations, I feel like a child in the backseat of a car who is hungry, asking his parents on the way to dinner, "Are we there yet?"
Question:
If this is not a matter of money, and these translators really are trying to get to a perfect Bible, then how many English translations are the publishing houses going to release ( at a price, of course ) before the translators and the publishers call it quits?
Answer:
When the goose stops laying the golden egg, you get another goose.
In other words, never.
In the business world, nobody gives up a cash cow...it's bad business.
Last edited:
You fail to prove your allegation to be true. Your allegation is likely based on your own unproven KJV-only assumptions.
For one thing, you are using the wrong standard for comparing Bible translations. The KJV is not the proper standard for evaluating other English Bible translations. Would you accept the 1560 Geneva Bible [the English translation accepted, believed, and loved by believers before 1611] as the standard for trying and evaluating the 1611 KJV? By assuming the KJV as the standard, you would be using the fallacy of begging the question.
The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations as the KJV translators themselves acknowledged.
The Church of England makers of the KJV added hundreds and likely thousands of words in English for which the translators had no original-language words of Scripture, and all those added words are not put in italics. How can words added by the KJV translators be the standard for claiming that inspired and preserved words are supposedly omitted?
According to the KJV translators themselves in their marginal notes, they found original-language words of Scripture in their texts for which they provided no English rendering. Sometimes they provided an English word for those words in Scripture in their marginal notes, but not in the text in the verses, and sometimes they failed to indicate in their marginal notes that they had provided no English rendering for an original-language of Scripture.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
My last post in this thread:
With respect, you win.
I concede your point, and declare you the victor. You'll not see a word from me, for as long as I can hold back from it, for the rest of the time that I am on this forum... which grows shorter with each passing day, by God's grace. I'll stick with what I started out reading in 1978, and you use whatever one ( or 10 ) of the over fifty English translations presently available.
Batting this back and forth is wearying me.
I wish you well, sir.
May His blessings be readily apparent in your life, and may He comfort you in all your troubles.
With respect, you win.
I concede your point, and declare you the victor. You'll not see a word from me, for as long as I can hold back from it, for the rest of the time that I am on this forum... which grows shorter with each passing day, by God's grace. I'll stick with what I started out reading in 1978, and you use whatever one ( or 10 ) of the over fifty English translations presently available.
Batting this back and forth is wearying me.
I wish you well, sir.
May His blessings be readily apparent in your life, and may He comfort you in all your troubles.
Last edited:
Unfortunately without the KJVO threads on the internet, Logos would have no life at all. Or so it seems. He spends all his time posting on the subject. It does get old.........you'd think anyway.
You are once again assuming that the originals were exactly the same as the TR has it, so of couse the critical/majority texts changed and corrupted it from that viewpoint!
I have NO problem with you or anyone else here who prefers to use the Kjv, its just that there is NO valid reason to demonize the modern versions as the Kjvo do!My last post in this thread:
With respect, you win.
I concede your point, and declare you the victor. You'll not see a word from me, for as long as I can hold back from it, for the rest of the time that I am on this forum... which grows shorter with each passing day, by God's grace. I'll stick with what I started out reading in 1978, and you use whatever one ( or 10 ) of the over fifty English translations presently available.
Batting this back and forth is wearying me.
I wish you well, sir.
May His blessings be readily apparent in your life, and may He comfort you in all your troubles.
he does a really nice job showing us that the Kjvo position has no real schalarship behind it!
That's fine, I guess.....but .......he spends his every waking hour (or so it seems) and has for several years now, posting about it!! On COUNTLESS forums all over the internet. ..........so........I repeat, if Logos didn't have the KJVO forums to spend his entire day posting his cut and paste responses, he'd have NO life, and that's just sad........because-
1.There's only so much to say on the subject....
2. It's all BEEN said over and over......
3. Nobody has changed their minds on either side........
4. It causes hard feelings between fellow Christians...
5. There's so many more IMPORTANT things that a Christian's time could be spent on for the cause of Christ.
JMHO.
Last edited:
- Status