KJV and the modern versions

[Ed Edwards]

Think things are confusing now? Imagine the textual chaos if the early Church had followed the modern English "translation" industry's tack: "Claudius, that epistle's Greek is so last decade. Let's revise it so that the new converts and the children can understand it better."

Ed notes that there were about 200 Million people on the AD 30 earth; there are about 320 Million people in the USofA in 2008.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Second, there is no evidence that the church discarded any texts.

HP: I believe it was Burgon after exhaustively studying the textual problems, was convinced that it was the practice of the scribes or those responsible for copying the texts, to destroy the ones that had fallen into disrepair after they had been copied. It has been some time since I read that portion of his writings but I believe he had come to that belief.
Quote:
HP: We make a copy of the original, but alter it to fit our own ideas, possibly even to the point of corrupting the ideas of the original. Another copy is made, and then another and then another all from the first manuscript, yet these copies are basically true to the original text yet all having slight variations due to different problems or error.

PL: You must not be aware that you have just disproved your own point. By showing that later copies (many of them) are faulty, you have shown that if you go back to the oldest (in this case the original), you have the better copy.

HP: How can you say that Larry? You are not thinking straight about this issue. On a time line, the second copy made may have in fact been a corrupt one. The hundredth copy may have in all reality been closest to the original. Who knows? Age in and of itself is absolutely no indicator of the correctness of the copy made. Survival of parchment or whatever the product was used for the texts could be due to any number of reasons, and certainly the ones that were not used to copy from, or were considered corrupted and unfit to copy from, would certainly be found to be in the best condition after many years of use or disuse depending on what had happened with the text.

PL: The principle of "older is better" "does not necessitate it being closer to the actual original documents." You are correct. No one says that it "necessitates" it, but only that it makes it more likely.

HP: Again, no, it does not in reality make it more likely. Such theories have no merit when it comes to establishing which one contains the text closest to the original. There are far too many variables. If you knew that the same individuals with the same skill level and the same commitment to transcribing the text exactly as the one before, were the only ones involved, you might be able with some confidence say that the oldest were closest to the originals if in fact every previous copy was destroyed and they only had the last copy to refer to, but even then it would only be a guess, with no guarantee of veracity.

The point again is that if 95% of the evidence clearly is in basic agreement, why would one pick the 5% that is clearly at great odds, not simply minor alterations but rather glaring differences, with the majority of the available texts, on the grounds that you yourself admit only might make it ‘more likely?’ Why would one pick the 5%, some of which were obviously not used, and discard the overwhelming concurring evidence of the remaining 95% on a mere theory that may in fact hold no water at all? Such reasoning is the antipathy of logic.

Pastor Larry: You ask about other pieces of the pie. Some are shorter readings are more likely to be original than longer ones, internal evidence and consistency, etc. It is a complicated field to be sure. But just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

HP: Are you saying that you understand these ‘other pieces of the pie, or you do not understand them. If you understand them, take one at a time and enlighten us as to their validity and how you apply them. I would certainly hope the evidence is far greater in force than the ’older is better’ myth. Why not start with the notion that shorter readings are more likely to be original than longer ones? Tell us how that works.

I am all for more evidence, but why throw away 95% to use 5%? Speaking of throwing away or ignoring evidence, that is a classic example.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Jerome
Think things are confusing now? Imagine the textual chaos if the early Church had followed the modern English "translation" industry's tack: "Claudius, that epistle's Greek is so last decade. Let's revise it so that the new converts and the children can understand it better."

Darron Steele:
Difference: the New Testament-era Greek of the New Testament is the original, while English translations are just that -- translations.

GE:
With 'early Church' meaning that of the 1st century, of course their task was not to translate. Nor did they possess the NT as we have it. It was the task of this and the Church of the 2nd c. to write, and find and collect other written sources, and to incorporate even oral traditions or 'sources' to have PRODUCED the NT which we today still PUT TOGETHER in exactly the same manner as they did, except that we no longer have living witnessess who might have added more oral 'sources'.

I say herein for me lies the greatest wonder of the Divine Predestination and Preservation of the Scriptures, that in those really 'original' sources PUT TOGETHER, there is no single contradiction or discrepancy or anything not absolute TRUTH to be found.

A 'collection' (and its 'translation') therefore can be 'BETTER' or 'WORSE', depending on how near it stays to that ORIGINAL ESSENCE --- the 'essence' found in, and which is OF, the literal and the then contemporary idiomatic meaning. In other words, which is NOT 'dynamic equivalent' or easy option to adapt yonder import of the written sources to our understanding, but the difficult option of adapting OUR minds to the import of the original.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I did not lie. You accused me for lying.

No I didn't. Go back adn read the first thing I said, and then read the second. I specifically did not accuse you of lying.

Did I attack the Word of God?

Yes, by saying it is not the Word of God, and thereby calling God's promises and God's word into question.

If modern versions contradicted with the God-speaking, they attacked Him, not me.

I agree. But they don't contradict the God who has spoken. They are his word.

Your belief contradicts with your modern versions.

No it doesn't. That's nonsense. I Have used modern versions for fifteen years and my doctrine and faith is stronger now than it ever was. I have seen far more fruit of ministry under modern versions. And on top of that, or underneath it, are the promises of God.

Can’t you see your belief agrees with the KJV?

Of course it does. I agree with the KJV. The problem is that the KJV teahes what I believe, not what you believe.

Your modern versions disagree with what you said.

Nowhere that I am aware of or that has ever been shown.

Can’t you see the KJV agrees with what you said?

Of course it does. It just doesn't agree with what you said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: I believe it was Burgon after exhaustively studying the textual problems, was convinced that it was the practice of the scribes or those responsible for copying the texts, to destroy the ones that had fallen into disrepair after they had been copied.[/quote]Perhaps ... but that doesn't make your poitn because these texts were not destroyed.

HP: How can you say that Larry? You are not thinking straight about this issue.

I am thinking quite straight, and I think if you were, you would see that you just said agreed with me.

On a time line, the second copy made may have in fact been a corrupt one.

Perhaps.

The hundredth copy may have in all reality been closest to the original.

Perhaps, but the probability is that with less copies come less possibilities of error. That is a simple fact.

Age in and of itself is absolutely no indicator of the correctness of the copy made.

I am glad you agree with me. I have said this several time. But again we are talking about probabilities.

HP: Again, no, it does not in reality make it more likely.

Yes it does. You are simply uninformed and unthinking on this topic.

The point again is that if 95% of the evidence clearly is in basic agreement, why would one pick the 5% that is clearly at great odds, not simply minor alterations but rather glaring differences, with the majority of the available texts, on the grounds that you yourself admit only might make it ‘more likely?’ Why would one pick the 5%, some of which were obviously not used, and discard the overwhelming concurring evidence of the remaining 95% on a mere theory that may in fact hold no water at all? Such reasoning is the antipathy of logic.

It is the antipathy of logic only if you don't understand the point. 100 copies of an error is still an error. Truth is not determined by majority vote. That is the major error you are making.

HP: Are you saying that you understand these ‘other pieces of the pie, or you do not understand them.

I understand them. You don't.

If you understand them, take one at a time and enlighten us as to their validity and how you apply them.

I have done this in individual passages which is where you do it. I doubt you are equipped to follow that discussion, and you are not demonstrating much aptitude here yet. You simply do not seem to be listening to the facts. So I doubt tthat my time would be well spent on that topic, considering all that has been written.

Why not start with the notion that shorter readings are more likely to be original than longer ones? Tell us how that works.

Because scribes have been shown to add things rather than delete them, usually for clarification. This was, in part, the point of "The Orthodox Corruption of the Text." Again, there is lots of material if you are really interested. If all you want to do is argue on an internet forum, I don't have time for that.

I am all for more evidence, but why throw away 95% to use 5%? Speaking of throwing away or ignoring evidence, that is a classic example.

No one is doing that. Again, such a statement reveals that you don't understand the issues.

I would encourage you to start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. He does an excellent job of answering some of these questions. You may not agree, but at least you won't have to ask me the questions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: I would encourage you to start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy

HP: Thanks but no thanks. Your problem is that you are gaining your information from the wrong sources. :thumbs: Sound familiar?

For the inquiring mind, here is an objective critical examination of that book.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examining01.htm

Here is one brief excerpt by the author that says volumes.

“Had I read White’s book as a young Bible school student or as a young missionary, and had I taken him seriously, I would have had a very shallow, insufficient conception of the works of KJV defenders; and I might not have taken the time to read Hills, Waite, Fuller, and others.”

I thank the Lord that God lead me on such a like path! I would encourage you, Pastor Larry, and all others, to follow suit as best you can at this point in your lives, if in fact that was not your initial course of study.

 

[Darron Steele]

Written to someone else:

...

I would encourage you to start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. He does an excellent job of answering some of these questions. You may not agree, but at least you won't have to ask me the questions.

As you can see from the reply you got, any books that do not confirm what these people have already decided to believe is one of those "wrong sources."

I have two main reasons for not adopting the 1769 KJV as `supreme Scripture authority.'

First of all, I read the Bible with some frequency in several languages: English, Spanish, and Portuguese. As for speaking, I am fluent in the first and marginally conversant in the second.

The translations in these languages differ in details from the KJV, and that is true from the 1500's onward. Mostly, this is due to the nature of the languages -- the content is the same, but the way of communicating it differs. Sometimes, however, it is due to translators translating differently from the KJV translators, and sometimes it is due to following a different original language text. People who assume that the present `perfect edition of Scripture' must be in some English translation assume quite a bit without real evidence. Usually, it is nothing more than prejudice -- either some idea that foreign translators are intellectually inferior, or some idea that God cares more about English-readers than anyone else.

Second, numbers and dates do not lie. John Burgon did very well in the late 19th century with the evidence that existed then -- but this is the early 21st century. Archaeologists have uncovered gobs of ancient manuscripts and dozens of very ancient manuscripts. In scholarly Greek texts, at many significant variants, anyone can see which ancient manuscripts have which. Quite often among these significant variants, the bulk of the ancient manuscripts have something different from what the KJV followed.

To get around this, speculations abound. There are conjectures about ancient manuscripts that do not exist. There are conspiracy theories that go against all evidence. All of these wild speculations are based on a prior assumption that the 1769 edition of the KJV is the supreme Bible authority, but somehow something went wrong so that it does not look like it. Without the prior assumption, the evidence simply speaks to the contrary truth.

These are my two biggest reasons for not placing the 1769 KJV in a plane above all other Bible translations.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: the bulk of the ancient manuscripts have something different from what the KJV followed.

HP: Now that is quite a statement. Were is your support for that comment?

DS: All of these wild speculations are based on a prior assumption that the 1769 edition of the KJV is the supreme Bible authority, but somehow something went wrong so that it does not look like it.

HP: Even in sight of the obvious intelligence you have, you are exposing your lack of study on the issue, and the way in which the confidence of multitudes of scholarly men and laymen alike have reached their conclusions. If truth is what you desire, read the link I posted above. I believe it is a fair and balanced examination of the truth.

 

[Darron Steele]

HP: Now that is quite a statement. Were is your support for that comment?

It is in what you chose to ignore:

...

Second, numbers and dates do not lie. John Burgon did very well in the late 19th century with the evidence that existed then -- but this is the early 21st century. Archaeologists have uncovered gobs of ancient manuscripts and dozens of very ancient manuscripts. In scholarly Greek texts, at many significant variants, anyone can see which ancient manuscripts have which. Quite often among these significant variants, the bulk of the ancient manuscripts have something different from what the KJV followed.

To get around this, speculations abound. There are conjectures about ancient manuscripts that do not exist. There are conspiracy theories that go against all evidence. All of these wild speculations are based on a prior assumption that the 1769 edition of the KJV is the supreme Bible authority, but somehow something went wrong so that it does not look like it. Without the prior assumption, the evidence simply speaks to the contrary truth.

These are my two biggest reasons for not placing the 1769 KJV in a plane above all other Bible translations.

You take the Nestle-Aland Greek texts, or the United Bible Societies Greek texts, or the Hodges-Farstad Majority text, and you will see at the bottom an apparatus. In each apparatus are the manuscript evidences given by ANCIENT manuscripts.

I am not the only person who has made such an observation.

You can do the same. You can learn the abbreviations of the manuscripts and their dates, and understand such apparati.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Deleted until I get my source straight. Sorry.

 

[Darron Steele]

HeavenlyPilgrim: I have already read that link and countless similar articles.

In that particular article and the other three parts, David Cloud many times did not even seem to understand the book he was critiquing. He seemed to be focused on showing how that book cannot be accurate because it does not agree with his presuppositions.

In reference to this and similar articles, I simply prefer evidence over presuppositions and rhetoric.

The Greek texts with apparati reporting the texts of ancient manuscripts are evidence. Those manuscripts tell us about the nature of the Greek texts in the centuries closest to the New Testament era. They are what was there -- they are first-hand sources.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: I simply prefer evidence over presuppositions and rhetoric.

HP: Now here is something that we agree on!:thumbs: ... and may I add ..the false theories of modern textual critics.:thumbs:

 

[Darron Steele]

HP: Now here is something that we agree on!:thumbs: ... and may I add ..the false theories of modern textual critics.:thumbs:

I would call the latter statement of yours "presuppositions and rhetoric."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: 100 copies of an error is still an error.

HP: Here you start off from an unfounded presupposition that not only are all 100 copies in error, you ascribe error to the first copy as well. Tell me Pastor, do you believe in the infallible inerrancy of Scripture, that it was verbally inspired by God?

Pastor Larry: Truth is not determined by majority vote. That is the major error you are making.

HP: How can that be true when neither I or anyone else is simply casting a vote?? If you equates the careful an scientific approach to the available manuscripts that men like Burgon, Waite, Wilson, Herman Hoskier etc. and others performed, merely a vote cast in favor of a particular translation, whatever you believe you have studied on the issue has been clouded by sheer blind bias.

This matter of portraying this issue as a mere ‘vote’ , or portraying that truth was decided by myself or these men by a ‘vote’ in favor of one version as opposed to all others, is a red herring at best without a shred of truth to it. It is the height of misinformation regarding the important work of many individuals, regardless of the intellectual standing of the individual(s) that make such irrational and false allegations.

 

[Darron Steele]

HeavenlyPilgrim: the quotes you are making and alleging to be mine are not anything I posted.

Perhaps you should go back and read whom you are REALLY quoting.

I think it is Pastor Larry, but whomever it is, IT IS NOT ME.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron, I am sorry. I deleted it until I find out who I was really quoting, It was an honest mistake. :thumbs:

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron, I am sorry. I deleted it until I find out who I was really quoting, It was an honest mistake. :thumbs:

I know.

I just wanted to make it clear that the words you attributed to me are not mine.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Is it not strange, but lucky for me, that the tiny bit of specific 'information' that has interested me now for about half a century, does not have in any of the several Scripture-references I have had to have a good look at, a referred or mentioned variant like spoken of above (post 1307825, Darron Steele), except Mk11:11 which is very easy to explain.

Stranger though is it that just at these Scriptures, the 'newer versions' differ so dramatically with the 'older' before twentieth century versions!!

I therefore cannot emphasise too strongly that whichever is the compilation, its 'versions' or 'translations' must not be confused for it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: Thanks but no thanks. Your problem is that you are gaining your information from the wrong sources. Sound familiar?

Yes, but misused. Knowing my sources, I know I have studied both sides objectively and learned from the right sources.

For the inquiring mind, here is an objective critical examination of that book.

David Cloud is a documented liar on this issue, as well as posting outright misleading statements.

Here is one brief excerpt by the author that says volumes.

All that says is that Cloud isn't a very good student because he would not have studied. You are correct that that says volumes.

I would encourage you, Pastor Larry, and all others, to follow suit as best you can at this point in your lives, if in fact that was not your initial course of study.

I imagine that it would be fair to say that I have studied this issue more than you have. The Bible has been my course of study for my life and I continue to make it that. That is how I recognize the error in your statements.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: Here you start off from an unfounded presupposition that not only are all 100 copies in error, you ascribe error to the first copy as well.

You don't seem to understand logic and argumentation. The "presupposition" is a premise, and the premise is that one hundred copies are in error. (I didn't say what they were copies of.) If you copy down "2+2=5" one hundred time, it will still be wrong. Period.

Tell me Pastor, do you believe in the infallible inerrancy of Scripture, that it was verbally inspired by God?

Absolutely.

HP: How can that be true when neither I or anyone else is simply casting a vote??

You don't seem to understand textual criticism. In textual criticism, the text critic is casting a vote for one reading as over against another.

If you equates the careful an scientific approach to the available manuscripts that men like Burgon, Waite, Wilson,

Herman Hoskier etc. and others performed, merely a vote cast in favor of a particular translation, whatever you believe you have studied on the issue has been clouded by sheer blind bias.

Again you don't seem to get it. When these men (and BTW, Waite is not particularly studied, and doesn't belong in the same category with Burgon) choose one reading over another, they are "casting a vote," so to speak.

This matter of portraying this issue as a mere ‘vote’ , or portraying that truth was decided by myself or these men by a ‘vote’ in favor of one version as opposed to all others, is a red herring at best without a shred of truth to it.

You are missing the point by fixating on a figure of speech. Let's use an actual example:

Col 1:14 (in English to make it easier for you):
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

Here, you have to choose one reading or the other. It doesn't matter how many copies each has. It only matters which one Paul wrote.

It is the height of misinformation regarding the important work of many individuals, regardless of the intellectual standing of the individual(s) that make such irrational and false allegations.

Not at all. The problem is that you simply don't seem to get it. You are fixated on entirely the wrong issue. Forget that I said "vote." It was an analogy. The truth is that when you have two or more readings (not copies of readings), you must choose between them and you must have some basis on which to do it. Counting the number of copies is generally not a good first step.