Is the KJV inspired?

[SavedByGrace]

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.

now you are being rather silly!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

Are you not here though assuming that the TR was the right textual basis, and so if the MT made any changes to that, would always be wrong?

 

[SavedByGrace]

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).

I am sure that you are aware, that the KJV's Greek textual basis, is more Beza's 1598 edition, and not as most think, that of Erasmus. It is a common mistake by those who don't really understand the history of the Greek text in the centuries before, and after the 1611 KJV. The number of mass is not really an issue in trying to get the correct reading for a text. You can have a reading which is supported by 1000 mss, even of early date, and another with 10 mss. It is bad textual scholarship to regard the reading of the 1000 mss as being correct, based on its numbers! Unless the full history of the 1000 mss is known, they could be nothing more than mere "copies" of a very unreliable parent mss. Like the Greek mss evidence for 1 John 5:7, and even 1 Timothy 3:16. Greater numbers do not always mean better reliability!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Are you not here though assuming that the TR was the right textual basis, and so if the MT made any changes to that, would always be wrong?

not assuming anything! I have personally done research on textual evidence for a great many years, and can say for the three examples that I have given, the Greek texts that do not reflect this as in the KJV, are most certainly wrong! Textual evidence is not only found in what mss might say, as some get hung up on. There is the Patristic evidence, and that of the early versions, like the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, and Old Syriac, etc, etc, which I find to be of more value than 1000 mss which might have a faulty/corrupt parent mss!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am sure that you are aware, that the KJV's Greek textual basis, is more Beza's 1598 edition, and not as most think, that of Erasmus. It is a common mistake by those who don't really understand the history of the Greek text in the centuries before, and after the 1611 KJV. The number of mass is not really an issue in trying to get the correct reading for a text. You can have a reading which is supported by 1000 mss, even of early date, and another with 10 mss. It is bad textual scholarship to regard the reading of the 1000 mss as being correct, based on its numbers! Unless the full history of the 1000 mss is known, they could be nothing more than mere "copies" of a very unreliable parent mss. Like the Greek mss evidence for 1 John 5:7, and even 1 Timothy 3:16. Greater numbers do not always mean better reliability!

The closest to the date of the Originals would mean something though.

 

[Yeshua1]

not assuming anything! I have personally done research on textual evidence for a great many years, and can say for the three examples that I have given, the Greek texts that do not reflect this as in the KJV, are most certainly wrong! Textual evidence is not only found in what mss might say, as some get hung up on. There is the Patristic evidence, and that of the early versions, like the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, and Old Syriac, etc, etc, which I find to be of more value than 1000 mss which might have a faulty/corrupt parent mss!

Do not both the CT and the MT though look at all of the available sources?

 

[SavedByGrace]

The closest to the date of the Originals would mean something though.

why should this be the case? If the mss that is copied in 200 A.D., was done by some heretic, like Origen, who influenced the NT text a great deal, then his bias that Jesus Christ is not "God", but a "secondary god", will probably be seen in his copy. I really don't understand why people have this thing about "older being better", it is simply NOT the case.

A good example I have seen in my studies of the Greek text, is the Woman taken in Adultery in John's Gospel. (7:53–8:11). The OLDEST Greek Mss that has these words as part of the text is the The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (because Beza at one time had it in is possession). This mss is dated in the 5th/6th century. Yet, the scholar, Jerome, writing before this time, says, that this passage is found "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C. Pelag. ii.17). Where are these MANY mss? Augustine commenting of the absence of this passage in some mss in his time, said it was removed by some who questioned the story!

 

[Yeshua1]

why should this be the case? If the mss that is copied in 200 A.D., was done by some heretic, like Origen, who influenced the NT text a great deal, then his bias that Jesus Christ is not "God", but a "secondary god", will probably be seen in his copy. I really don't understand why people have this thing about "older being better", it is simply NOT the case.

A good example I have seen in my studies of the Greek text, is the Woman taken in Adultery in John's Gospel. (7:53–8:11). The OLDEST Greek Mss that has these words as part of the text is the The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (because Beza at one time had it in is possession). This mss is dated in the 5th/6th century. Yet, the scholar, Jerome, writing before this time, says, that this passage is found "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C. Pelag. ii.17). Where are these MANY mss? Augustine commenting of the absence of this passage in some mss in his time, said it was removed by some who questioned the story!

Do you also hold to the longer ending for mark?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do not both the CT and the MT though look at all of the available sources?

did they? Then I must ask again, what happened in Luke 1:35, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7, as examples? On WHAT authority were these removed/changed? What "sources" were used to arrive at their conclusions.

There are textual scholars like Robindon-Pierpont, and Hodges-Farstad; and then there are Burgon, Scrivener, and Kenyon. The latter being truly in a class of their own!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do you also hold to the longer ending for mark?

without any doubt the Original as written by Mark. I suggest if you have the time, to take a look at the very best study done of this passage, by one of the best textual scholars in Christendom, John Burgon, whose work on this is the best ever done. I have yet to see a rebuttal of this by anyone in over 100 years! http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-pdf.pdf

there is ZERO doubt that Mark wrote this, and Burgon will never be proven wrong!

 

[Yeshua1]

did they? Then I must ask again, what happened in Luke 1:35, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7, as examples? On WHAT authority were these removed/changed? What "sources" were used to arrive at their conclusions.

There are textual scholars like Robindon-Pierpont, and Hodges-Farstad; and then there are Burgon, Scrivener, and Kenyon. The latter being truly in a class of their own!

There were also those supporting the CT....

 

[Yeshua1]

without any doubt the Original as written by Mark. I suggest if you have the time, to take a look at the very best study done of this passage, by one of the best textual scholars in Christendom, John Burgon, whose work on this is the best ever done. I have yet to see a rebuttal of this by anyone in over 100 years! http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-pdf.pdf

there is ZERO doubt that Mark wrote this, and Burgon will never be proven wrong!

There have been advancements in the field of textual criticism since his time though, as more manuscripts and other items have been discovered...

 

[SavedByGrace]

There have been advancements in the field of textual criticism since his time though, as more manuscripts and other items have been discovered...

maybe so, but that does not mean the evidence now is any better. it is more than age and numbers!

 

[SavedByGrace]

There were also those supporting the CT....

you mean the text from the unreliable codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?

 

[Yeshua1]

maybe so, but that does not mean the evidence now is any better. it is more than age and numbers!

Much netter technology to assist now though as a computer can now do what took long time and many workers to do in his time...

 

[Yeshua1]

you mean the text from the unreliable codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?

Unreliable to some, but not to all!

 

[John of Japan]

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.

So, if I have this right, your method of textual criticism is based on doctrinal importance. Is that correct? If so, what do you do about the many places where the TR takes away readings that the Byz. has? What about the doctrinal issues the Byz. supports that are ignored in the TR?

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!

I can't believe that you are comparing those men to Dr. Robinson. First of all, their methods of textual criticism are very different. Secondly their personal character is very different. Thirdly, their doctrine is different. Dr. Robinson is a good Baptist, but they were baby baptizing, formalistic Church of England.

Furthermore, you've shown no real knowledge so far of the Byzantine Priority methodology. Have you read anything at all by Dr. Robinson? Or by Zane Hodges? Or the festschrift for Dr. Robinson by many of us who hold to Byzantine Priority? Or Burgon, who had a type of Byzantine Priority (somewhat different)?

If you answer this, the thread will probably be closed before I can respond further. On Monday, I may be able to start a thread comparing the TR to the Byz. in Matthew. See you there, perhaps.

And again, I deeply do not appreciate your personal attack on Dr. Robinson. It was misguided. He's not your enemy.

 

[John of Japan]

now you are being rather silly!

No, I was as serious as the divirticulitus attack that almost killed me in on Christmas Eve, necessitating emergency surgery. If you cannot connect your textual criticism to glorifying Christ through obeying His Great Commission, you are on a side track.

You stated basically that the Byz. Priority method was an attack on the Word of God. If that be true, then the Japanese have no Bibles. This to me is incredibly important.

 

[John of Japan]

I am sure that you are aware, that the KJV's Greek textual basis, is more Beza's 1598 edition, and not as most think, that of Erasmus. It is a common mistake by those who don't really understand the history of the Greek text in the centuries before, and after the 1611 KJV. The number of mass is not really an issue in trying to get the correct reading for a text. You can have a reading which is supported by 1000 mss, even of early date, and another with 10 mss. It is bad textual scholarship to regard the reading of the 1000 mss as being correct, based on its numbers! Unless the full history of the 1000 mss is known, they could be nothing more than mere "copies" of a very unreliable parent mss. Like the Greek mss evidence for 1 John 5:7, and even 1 Timothy 3:16. Greater numbers do not always mean better reliability!

Please, study exactly what the Byz. Priority method is before you pontificate about it. I did not say that Dr. Robinson's method was based simply on number of mss.

See you on another thread, perhaps.

 

[SavedByGrace]

See you on another thread, perhaps

perhaps not, as I not see that our understanding of the Greek text is the same. I have been through this very thing for over 35 years now, and cannot see much middle ground. Btw, your remark about Westcott, Hort and Ellicott, that "they were baby baptizing, formalistic Church of England", are illjudged, to say the least! I don't much care at the way they handled the text in the 1881 Revision, but do acknowledge that they were very brilliant scholars in the filed of textual criticism, even though some of their conclusions were way off. I don't see Robinson as an "enemy", as he is very much as brother in the Lord. But I do know that too much has been made over the years on the Byz. Priority, which I personally do not hold.

I sincerely wish you well, and look forward to reading what you post on your thread. Blessing in Jesus, our common cause!