-
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!
KJV and the modern versions
- Thread starter antiaging
- Start date
- Status
EdSutton said:
Let's talk about the septuagint or LXX. A corrupted Alexandrian Old Testament that is part of vaticanus and sinaiticus.
The claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers always used the Septuagint to quote from the Old Testament is without biblical evidence. It has been said that in the New Testament there are about 263 direct quotations from the Old. However, many of these Old Testament quotations in the New are significantly different from the Septuagint. If Jesus and the Apostles relied on the Septuagint for all their Old Testament quotations, such a difference would not have resulted.
http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP5.htm
Read the rest of the article.
The "Fact " is that the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and had freedom, like preachers do today in services, to quote from the scriptures the parts they wanted to quote and then add some more interpretation to it, as directed by God. The quotes do match the massoretic text textus receptus to some extent, and then the apostles interpreted or expounded upon that. That is what a preacher does in a sermon at church. Those sermons from the apostles became New Testament scripture.
The "fact" is that there is no real evidence that the septuagint existed at the time of the apostles. There are only untrustworthy legends and myths about that. The only certainty about the existence of the septuagint is that it existed around the third or fourth century.
It is very possible that the septuagint quoted from the apostles, because it was written later; the apostles did not quote from the septuagint.
see the website
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-septuagint.html
Jesus made a reference to
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
That is a reference to the three divisions of the massoretic text, the law, the prophets and the writings.
The Septuagint had it in a different order. The evidence from that is that Jesus and the apostles were using the massoretic text of the Jews and not the Septuagint.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever
oral traditions were available to them.
The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.
When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible.
Massoretic text is translated literally in the King James version Old Testament.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
sag38 said:
Amen, Brother sag38 - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:
Ed Edwards said:
Ed, there are no revisions of the KJV. There are only editions, to standardize spelling upgrade english usage etc. The KJV today is essentially the same as the 1611 version.
What the modern versions do by mixing in other manuscripts from Alexandria to form an eclectic mix; that is a revision.
http://www.scourby.com/
sag38 said:
GE:
This post represents the best of 'arguments' in this thread against 'antiaging'. I am looking on from outside, and have seen NO refutation of any specific 'point' 'antiaging' has raised.
How many times has 'antiaging' been warned and scared? But no proof of any contra-allegation!
tinytim said:
GE:
Here's another example of the quality of 'argument' against those who dare criticise versions like the NIV.
This example once again shows how 'generalisation' seems to overcome every difficulty of the particular.
To be for the KJV and to prefer it to any later translation, does not make one a KJV-onliest! And to reveal the corruptions of the NIV does not mean one brings every other translation down to its level.
And Ed Sutton, while you are going to report that post of 'antiaging', sommer mention this post of 'tinytim's'
Last edited by a moderator:
The versions forum is full of stuff from the past decade or so where this has been refuted. Furthermore, there are a multitude of other sources that show the errors (logical, factual, and theological) of those who espouse the KJVO position.
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Calling a NIV a Perversion is Blaspheming against the Word of God.
And while it seems this is allowed down here amongst denominations that are not Baptist, those of us that are Baptist that participates in the versions forum realizes that calling any version of the Bible a perversion is a sin.
Pastor Larry said:
Any translation of the real preserved unaltered texts, of massoretic text old testament and majority text [the byzantine textus receptus] new testament is a translation of the real word of God.
The KJV translators were of the highest quality [from English universities; England where the language originated from] and their system of checks meant each translation went through about 14 inspections before being approved.
The KJV is the best translation of the unaltered texts.
Rome split into two divisions, Rome controlled western half and the byzantine eastern half. In the byzantine sector, the New Testament was passed down unchanged, copied and recopied word for word. This is the unaltered byzantine or textus receptus, the received text.
In the Roman western half, Eusebius, the guy Constantine chose to make up 50 bibles for the Roman catholic church started to make eclectic mixtures of various texts, mixing in corrupted texts from Alexandria Egypt. His practice of eclectic mixes has gone on unto this day. Here is a quote from this early catholic church man Eusebius:
In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).
The guy that started the eclectic mixing of texts in the rome controlled part of the empire apparently had no respect for the truth, and did not care about what was really true.
God promised in the scriptures that He would preserve His Word.
It seems like since Satan cannot destroy God's Word, he decided to camouflage it in the midst of many fake versions to make it hard for someone to find it.
You are correct partially. Any translation of the MT and the MajT are the real Word of God. However, you are also factually incorrect in at least two aspects. First, these texts are not "unaltered." There are textual variants both in the MT and the MajT. Second, translations from other texts are also the real Word of God.
They are not superior to translator's today, and 14 inspections is both likely inaccurate, as well as fewer inspections than modern translations go through.
The KJV is not a translation of an unaltered text.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the Byzantine text. First, it is a text type or a family of texts. Second, there is no unanimity among the texts. The variants are real. (BTW, this is true with the KJV. There is no unanimity, even today. They are different, and you know the saying ...)
Yes indeed, and he never promised to do it only in the KJV. He has done it through a multitude of texts and translations.
It's not hard to find at all. Tomorrow, I will make it plain when I preach from the NASB. Satan has not camouflaged the word of God. Your confusion is probably due to a lack of understanding of the issues, but it may simply be due to unbelief in the Scriptures. Your comments here lead me to believe that you simply don't understand the issues because you have sat under false teachers. Unfortunately for those men (or women), they will be judged by a higher standard (James 3:1) and will be held accountable for leading sheep such as yourself astray. Fortunately for you, you have come under the influence of teachers of the truth which gives you hope.
Nicholas25
New Member
This is very interesting stuff. I have posted before that I consider the KJV to be the best Bible version, but that I use many different versions. I have never been KJV only because to me that is legalism. I actually just purchased a NLT (New Living Translation) Study Bible.
Please forgive me but you guys crack me up with these Baptist Board rules. I mean wanting to have posts moved to other forums and getting upset when someone breaks a "BB rule" is a little childish and nerdy! I know I should not have just typed that and please do forgive me, but it does remind me of little kids at school.
Please forgive me but you guys crack me up with these Baptist Board rules. I mean wanting to have posts moved to other forums and getting upset when someone breaks a "BB rule" is a little childish and nerdy! I know I should not have just typed that and please do forgive me, but it does remind me of little kids at school.
tinytim said:
GE:
Alright, I - for myself, and who am I after all - shall qualify, and not generalise as well,
1) that no translation of the Bible is faultless;
2) but that some - the NIV more than any other I have had to do with - CONTAINS undeniable perversions of the 'original' or 'text'.
3) I shall in the second place, reserve opinion about the 'apparatus' or maunuscript selections or 'texts' - whatever they may be called - to 'better' and 'bad', and shall prefer the TR before the WH or NA.
Will that also in your estimation be against the Ten Commandments of BaptistBoard?
Please take heed to this warning.antiaging said:
BTW, no translation is inspired. Only the originals were inspired and they are gone. God promised to preserve his word, which he has. We have over 5000 Manuscripts in which His Word is preserved. Some believe it is preserved more accurately in the Majority Text, and others in the Critical Text. That is the issue to be addressed. No translation is a perfect translation. All translations have mistakes in them, even the KJV.
Have you ever heard of a "unicorn"?
antiaging said:
Here is one of the doctrinal points from the statement of faith from the link which you cited above:
If the King James of 1611 is the most accurate translation of the Bible, do you use it? Are you sure? Does your KJV read like this:
(Est 1:2) That in those dayes, when the King Ahasuerus sate on the throne of his kingdome, which was in Shushan the palace:
(Est 1:3) In the third yeere of his reigne, he made a feast vnto all his Princes, and his seruants, the power of Persia and Media, the Nobles and Princes of the prouinces being before him.
(Est 1:4) When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdome, and the honour of his excellent maiestie, many dayes, euen an hundred and fourescore dayes.
(Est 1:5) And when these dayes were expired, the king made a feast vnto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both vnto great and small, seuen dayes, in the court of the garden of the kings palace, (Esther 1:1-5 KJV 1611)
Do you really use the 1611 KJV or is it more probable that the edition that you use the 1769, a corrected edition, four editions later and 155 years of corrections later? So the King James is not perfect, and never was, is it?
You might do well to read the actual position of the webmaster:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/whykjv.html
Since I never raised any issue, here, about either/or the OT or NT, or the LXX, specifically, why should I want to be dragged off topic? I choose not to play that game.antiaging said:
Are you seriously suggesting I am completely ignorant as to these arguments, both for and against any given 'text type'? Or are you merely wanting to show the results of another's so-called 'investigation', here?
I have asked several questions directly to you, on previous posts, as well as pointed out inaccuracies, in your statements, in others. I will grant that I have not pointed out every single one, and attemtped a refutation, simply because I could do nothing else, were I so engaged. Yet you seemingly act as though I never posted once. Why is that?
When you choose to answer some of what I have previously written, I shall be glad to continue this dialogue. But I am not willing to play "See if you can catch me!" while you jump to another site, and/or quote from another site, and often without giving much credit, at that.
Your turn.
In the meantime, I'm going :sleeping_2:
Ed
tinytim said:
Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
You are simply wrong. They included it their daily reading schedule and and they cross-referenced in the marginal notes.
You need to do more research than just av1611.org
Do me a favour, since no one else has answered it.
Did the KJV 1611 render 1 John 5v12 correctly, or was is correct as rendered in later editions?
You need to do more research than just av1611.org
Do me a favour, since no one else has answered it.
Did the KJV 1611 render 1 John 5v12 correctly, or was is correct as rendered in later editions?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Nicholas25 said:
Expecting members to abide by rules they agreed to is childish?????
- Status