• 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!

Is the KJV inspired?

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can you please ask Dr Robinson, why some VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal texts have been "corrupted" in his Greek version. I shall give 3 such examples.

1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!

2. The whole verse of the Eunich's confession on Jesus Christ as SON OF GOD, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", has been OMITTED!!! Ireneaus also in the second century quotes it!

3. The clearest single text for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been EXPUNGED!!! Tertullian, Cyprian, among others knew of this in their GREEK and LATIN NT!

These are SERIOUS CORRUPTIONS to the Word of God, and makes this "translation" a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible!!! SHAME on Dr Robinson!
Oh, come on now. In the first place, it's not a "translation." That's ignorant. It's a Greek New Testament. In the second place, why should I ask anything of Dr. Robinson when you are accusing him of an "attack on the Authority and infallibility of the Holy Bible." Since you start out prejudiced against his monumental work, you prejudice me against your opinions.

Oh, and by the way, he's the one who told me where to get free TR Greek NTs for my Greek 102 class. He's not your enemy.

Dr. Robinson is a good man. He loves the Lord and stands up for the Word of God, conservative theology, other things that please the Lord. Your attack is unwarranted.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can you please ask Dr Robinson, why some VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal texts have been "corrupted" in his Greek version. I shall give 3 such examples.

1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!

2. The whole verse of the Eunich's confession on Jesus Christ as SON OF GOD, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", has been OMITTED!!! Ireneaus also in the second century quotes it!

3. The clearest single text for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been EXPUNGED!!! Tertullian, Cyprian, among others knew of this in their GREEK and LATIN NT!

These are SERIOUS CORRUPTIONS to the Word of God, and makes this "translation" a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible!!! SHAME on Dr Robinson!
If it is true that these omissions make a translation (not a Greek NT) "a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible," then poor Japan. Japanese cannot buy a translation that is not "an attack on the Bible."

I'd have to look up in my copy of the Motoyaku, the original Japanese Bible (which is not strictly from the TR) from about 1870), but I can't right now, since I'm at our seminary retreat. Besides, it's impossible to find, even used. (I looked 4 years all over Yokohama before finding a NT.) However, the Brown translation, the Japanese Classical Bible, the, Colloquial Version, the Shinkaiyaku, the Kyoudou Bible, the JW version, none of these have these passages.

Oh, yes, there was the Nagai NT translation from Stephanus. But it's in classical Japanese which the high schools don't teach anymore), and it's totally out of print. Oh, yeah, there is the Lifeline Japanese NT of which I am the lead translator. It's from the Scrivener NT; but the thing is, it's not in print yet.

About 80,000 of the Lifeline John & Romans have been handed out in Japan. And two ministries are going to hand out many thousands of that and our Mark at the Olympics next summer. Praise the Lord. But the NT has been completed, but is still being proofed. Can't give you one.
 

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Perhaps it should be obvious that the phrases and verses in question that SBG objected to happen *not* to be in the vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine or Majority text.

Don't blame the messenger for merely reporting the factual data...
 

37818

Well-Known Member
1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!
First thank you for pointing this variant out.
It was not in the TR text the NKJV translators used. And my TR interlinear only has that reading as a foot note used in Lachmann's TR. Dr Pickering in his F35GNT does not even note the reading. NA26 lists the Greek texts that have it. That reading is also a foot note in the ASV.
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ah, James White and his so called "evidences", what a JOKE!

there is no textual scholar that I know of, who can produce a work on 1 Timothy 3:16, for the reading "theos", that is better than what Burgon has done. Burgon is A+++ as a textual scholar, neither White, Wallace, Metzger, etc can be placed in the same!
How about AT Robinson?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you have a list? I really don't think this is true. I've compared the TR and Byz for most or all of the NT. There are whole chapters that are exactly the same, and the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.
Are there really any real major changes though between the MT and the CT in regards to doctrines?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Conversing with Dr. Robinson about this, he shared his phraseology about the TR being a Byz. text with me. I think this is important.

"The TR Scrivener edition is a *general* representative of the Byzantine text, but it is still only a sub-representative, just as are many "Byzantine" MSS themselves to varying degrees."
Is that considered to be the "best" TR text then?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can you please ask Dr Robinson, why some VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal texts have been "corrupted" in his Greek version. I shall give 3 such examples.

1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!

2. The whole verse of the Eunich's confession on Jesus Christ as SON OF GOD, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", has been OMITTED!!! Ireneaus also in the second century quotes it!

3. The clearest single text for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been EXPUNGED!!! Tertullian, Cyprian, among others knew of this in their GREEK and LATIN NT!

These are SERIOUS CORRUPTIONS to the Word of God, and makes this "translation" a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible!!! SHAME on Dr Robinson!
Also, make sure to ask why the Kjv calls the Holy Spirit an It, why we have Easter, and why they had Peter and Paul calling Jesus Savior, but not as the great God?
Just saying that all translations have some issues!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The TR is "more restricted and limited" in the sense that Erasmus only had six mss, as I recall. On the other hand, Robinson/Pierpont used at least 100's of Byz. mss out of a possible 1000s. I do know that Dr. Robinson has collated every single mss with the Pericope Adulterae. So to that extent (I hate to say) I agree with Dr. Porter (who goes to seed on Greek verbal aspect).
What is his mistake on the Greek Verb?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh, come on now. In the first place, it's not a "translation." That's ignorant. It's a Greek New Testament. In the second place, why should I ask anything of Dr. Robinson when you are accusing him of an "attack on the Authority and infallibility of the Holy Bible." Since you start out prejudiced against his monumental work, you prejudice me against your opinions.

Oh, and by the way, he's the one who told me where to get free TR Greek NTs for my Greek 102 class. He's not your enemy.

Dr. Robinson is a good man. He loves the Lord and stands up for the Word of God, conservative theology, other things that please the Lord. Your attack is unwarranted.
The problem for some was that he had a work that at times disagreed with the TR!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is his mistake on the Greek Verb?
Verbal aspect is "the view of the action that the speaker chooses to present to the hearer" (David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek). A similar term is aktionsart, which is the kind of action portrayed by the verb. Porter takes this too far, completely minimizing the time function of the Greek verbs, even in the present tense.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Bzt text is better then in those areas? And is it true that it does not handle Revelation translation that well?
It handles Revelation translation fine. It's just that the Byzantine family of Revelation mss has more variation than one would think. It's complicated.
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Oh, come on now. In the first place, it's not a "translation." That's ignorant. It's a Greek New Testament. In the second place, why should I ask anything of Dr. Robinson when you are accusing him of an "attack on the Authority and infallibility of the Holy Bible." Since you start out prejudiced against his monumental work, you prejudice me against your opinions.

Oh, and by the way, he's the one who told me where to get free TR Greek NTs for my Greek 102 class. He's not your enemy.

Dr. Robinson is a good man. He loves the Lord and stands up for the Word of God, conservative theology, other things that please the Lord. Your attack is unwarranted.

Greetings! Yes, it is a Greek text, my slip, but not ignorant! The MT has claims that it is an improvement of what has gone before, and even claims to be "the Byzantine Priority"! over what exactly as its omissions of important Doctrinal passages, as shown from the examples that I have shown, shows the lack of serious scholarship in restoring the true NT text, which this text-form is trying to do. The textual evidence for the three examples is very much greater for the inclusion of the texts, than their omission. My attack is on this Byzantine Text because of its claims to being "better" in the NT text, than those that have gone before. With this in mind, one cannot but question the credibility of the textual knowedge of those involved in this Greek text. There is NO justification for their claim to anything "better", when they fail on important Doctrinal passages. I don't doubt for a moment that Dr Robinson is a good man, as were Westcott, Hort, Ellicott, etc, but does not make them "good" in the field of textual criticism, especially when their conclusions are questionable!
 
Top