KJV and the modern versions

[Pastor Larry]

Different editions of that same version came out to standardize spelling, upgrade to more modern English, and add some verses that were left out in the first priniting (a printing error).

So you admit that the KJV isn't the perfect word of God and has errors in it. You call it a printer's error as if that makes an error more acceptable. Is your God not big enough to get the printers to work correctly? Imagine, he can inspire a word and preserve it for thousands of years, but can't get a skilled tradesmen to put the letters in the right order?

The KJV used today is essentially the same as the 1611 version.
There are no revisions of the KJV, only editions.

This is a distinction without a difference. It is a convenient way of ignoring the fact that the "Perfect Word of God" was so imperfect that it had to be changed.

The modern versions, which mix in corrupted manuscripts vaticannus and sinaiticus [property of the vatican] are revisions of the bible. They are different versions.

They are not revisions. They are simply editions of the English Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: They are not revisions. They are simply editions of the English Bible.

HP: I see that as a clearly misleading if not false statement. The changes, as I understand the facts, are based on manuscripts that are less than 5% of all textual evidence, with clear evidence that for over 400 years the Church has felt were untrustworthy to be used, to the point of being discarded. There is not a shred of evidence to dispute where and when these texts were found. For you to act as if it is a mere fable, show us from any reputable source a history of the finding of these texts that is different. You will find that beating against well establish facts only produces fairytales and conjecture, but no real changes in the factual evidence.

The manuscripts not used by the translators of the KJV had been around the Church again for hundreds of years and were obviously never considered as viable texts, otherwise they would have been incorporated long ago. They were not safely buried away from human intervention in the desert by God or man for latter resurrection. They were in the hands of men and within sight of numerous individuals, monks especially, dedicated to the preservation of truth and God’s Word, yet were discarded by them as corrupted and untrustworthy and with good cause. If nothing other than the numerous ommissins of well established inspired passages, that would be cause not to use them.

This notion of simply being ‘editions of the English Bible’ is about as fanciful and far from the truth as any notion posted thus far. And besides, they were not in English, nor had they incorporated the manuscripts used in the English Bibles. If they had, they would not have had the ommissions they were full of.

Of a truth, W& H were not saviors of anything, let alone the trusted and tested, well established Word of God. Their work was an aberation of, not an edition to, what the Church had recognized as truth for centuries.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry, (and all others. ) What about the Masoretic text (the canon of OT which contains 39 books) which form a large portion of the TR or the Majority text? Was it verbally inspired, or immediately inspired by God? Can it be trusted as God’s direct words to man?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Is older better? I believe I have faithfully debunked the notion that simply because a text has survived that is older does not necessitate it being closer to the actual original documents. On the other hand, the issues I presented do not necessarily ‘prove’ that an older manuscript is not closer to the original document.

Pastor Larry tells us that such an unproven theory (older is closer to the truth) is simply one part of this large pie of evidence. Tell us pastor, what do the major portions of this pie consist of? If this was just a small portion, there must be easy to understand large portions of evidence for the text found in the kindling box of the monastery that would set forth undisputable evidence that these texts are closer to the originals than we find in the MText. What might that LARGE PORTION of evidence you have alluded to consist of in your own mind?

 

[tinytim]

an unproven theory (older is closer to the truth)

Ever play the Gossip game?

This is not an unproven truth.. .it has been proven many times over...

Play the gossip game and try it out for yourself... have a room full of 20 people.. whisper into ones ear "I am not an idiot, I tell the truth, it is here to be found"... and then pass it on to all the 20...

The last one to hear it will undoubtedly repeat something NOT what you said.

OR....

Take a master copy of any document...
And copy it on a copier...
Then start making copies of copies, with each new copy, make another one off of it...

Make 50 copies, and compare the 1st copy with the last copy...

Which one is closer to the original?

Older is better... (That's what my Grandpa used to tell me when I thought I knew everything as an ignorant young kid)... I now believe him.:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tiny Tim: Ever play the Gossip game?

HP: Tim, you are either showing ignorance of the manner and care in which copies were made and watched over, or you are simply injecting a red herring. Which is it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This 'older is better' false theory of some men is a mere rabbit trail that simply amazes me.

Lets say we have the original. 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.


Hundreds of years later, it just so happens that the oldest manuscript that survives is the one that had been corrupted by false ideas, being preserved better for numerous reasons. Bear in mind that over 95% of all existent manuscripts remain true to the basic rendering of the original text, and less that 5% (ALL PARTICULARLLY FROM ONE SPECIFIC REGION, that being EGYPTIAN) differ from the remaining and overwhelming 95% of the manuscripts..... go ahead and tell us Tim, Pastor Larry or any others, how does older prove that the one now said to be the oldest has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not it is in fact consistent with a text we no longer have to compare it with? Are we even thinking about this in a logic fashion?
Older is better does not stand the test of the simplest illustration. That piece of the pie is rotten to the core.

 

[tinytim]

HP: Tim, you are either showing ignorance of the manner and care in which copies were made and watched over, or you are simply injecting a red herring. Which is it?

Neither... It is the same principle.

No matter how careful scribes were, there were inconsistancies...

To deny this shows ignorance of history.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TinyTim: No matter how careful scribes were, there were inconsistancies...

HP: I find no problem with that statement. In that we agree. We are not speaking of simply a few minor inconsistencies. We are speaking of a small group of manuscripts comprising less than 5% of all existent manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts, that are of a different nature, having thousands of changes, whole chapters and numerous other omissions, and may other discrepancies as well. They are rightfully islands to themselves, out of touch with the truth as supported by the remaining 95% of the manuscripts available.

What has happened is that the whole of Church tradition on the inerrancy of Scripture has been turned on its head by the theories that can be pointed basically in one direction, to the feet of two men, W&H, that did not even believe in the verbal inspiration of God’s Word. Thanks but no thanks Tim.

Show the list how the illustration I gave does not prove that older is not necessarily better. Then, show us that mountain of other evidence in favor of the texts represented in the text W&H used to establish their credibility. Surely there must be better evidence than the false notion of ‘older equates to better’ non- sense as far as any sound critical textual theory might employ.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Heavenly Pilgrim - Peach it! :thumbs:

The excellence of your words proves my signature statement TRUE:

-

 

[Ed Edwards]

Neither... It is the same principle.

No matter how careful scribes were, there were inconsistancies...

To deny this shows ignorance of history.

Yep, but despite this, The Word of God comes through -- as Gold or Silver refined in the hot fires of numerous versions, fragments, translations, rephrasing, amended spellings, renewals, updates, upgrades, change of alphabets, change of language, demographic changes, geographic changes, rewritings, book burnings, Christian burnings -- through it all the Written Word of God comes through AS & LIKE Gold or Silver refined in hot fires of those who Love the Word of God.

By Contrast, the Nay (neigh) Sayers sound like sick horses :tear:

 

[Askjo]

So you admit that the KJV isn't the perfect word of God and has errors in it. You call it a printer's error as if that makes an error more acceptable. Is your God not big enough to get the printers to work correctly? Imagine, he can inspire a word and preserve it for thousands of years, but can't get a skilled tradesmen to put the letters in the right order?

I understand that the KJV has the printing errors, but it does not have the doctrinal errors. Look at modern versions. MVs have many doctrinal errors. See the difference between them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I understand that the KJV has the printing errors,

Which by any definition means it is not perfect.

Look at modern versions. MVs have many doctrinal errors

No they don't. This is an attack against the Word of God. I have been involved in this discussion for years and have never once seen a doctrinal error. Statements like this are made either out of ignorance or out of deliberate intention to mislead people about God's word. It is unacceptable. I think you have simply bought into a lie and then have repeated it. Please stop.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The changes, as I understand the facts, are based on manuscripts that are less than 5% of all textual evidence,

As you have demonstreated, the "Understanding" that you here appeal to is bad understanding. The changes in teh KJV are changes, and they mean that the KJV is not perfect (or at least was not), and at least one edition of it is not perfect now (since they are different).

Second, there is no evidence that the church discarded any texts. There is evidence that they did not know about them, and perhaps in the providence of God that was to protect his word through years of hand copying with all its problems so that by the technological age there were more trustworthy ways of preserving his word.

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[Askjo]

No they don't. This is an attack against the Word of God. I have been involved in this discussion for years and have never once seen a doctrinal error. Statements like this are made either out of ignorance or out of deliberate intention to mislead people about God's word. It is unacceptable. I think you have simply bought into a lie and then have repeated it. Please stop.

Lie? It is YOU to say that I lied. Remember that the Bible is The God-speaking. Modern versions announced that Jesus’ testimony is true AND false. These MVs contradicted with The God-speaking then therefore Jesus contradicts Himself. Shame on you! Shame on those translators of modern versions!

I believe Jesus’ testimony must be TRUE then therefore the Bible, Jesus-speaking, must also be true. That is why I stick with the KJV.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Lie? It is YOU to say that I lied.

No, I said you bought into a lie and then repeated it. I don't think your intention is to mislead, and since lying requires intent, you don't qualify for that. You are, however, repeating a lie.

Remember that the Bible is The God-speaking. Modern versions announced that Jesus’ testimony is true AND false. These MVs contradicted with The God-speaking then therefore Jesus contradicts Himself.

That is simply not true. Your attacks on the Word of God are what is shameful. And you have been around long enough to know better.

I believe Jesus’ testimony must be TRUE then therefore the Bible, Jesus-speaking, must also be true. That is why I stick with the KJV.

I believe the same thing, and that is why I use the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV primarily ... Because God is true and cannot lie.

 

[Askjo]

No, I said you bought into a lie and then repeated it. I don't think your intention is to mislead, and since lying requires intent, you don't qualify for that. You are, however, repeating a lie.[/color][/font]

I did not lie. You accused me for lying.

That is simply not true. Your attacks on the Word of God are what is shameful. And you have been around long enough to know better.

Did I attack the Word of God? If modern versions contradicted with the God-speaking, they attacked Him, not me.

I believe the same thing,

Great!

that is why I use the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV primarily

Your belief contradicts with your modern versions. Can’t you see your belief agrees with the KJV?

Because God is true and cannot lie.

Your modern versions disagree with what you said. Can’t you see the KJV agrees with what you said?

 

[Darron Steele]

You know, I am tired of all this talk about how believing Jesus about the Bible means somehow we should have a blinding loyalty to the King James Version.

When Jesus Christ was teaching, preaching, and ministering, the year 035 had not even come around. The King James Version in its first form did not come off the press until 1611. When Jesus Christ was talking about "Scripture," He could not have been talking about any form of the King James Version.

When Jesus Christ was teaching, preaching, and ministering, "Scripture" existed at that time. It was not some future entity. It was something that could be accessed at that time.

When Jesus Christ was teaching, preaching, and ministering, English did not even exist. So, when Jesus Christ was talking about "Scripture," He could not have been talking about any translation into English whatsoever.

If we are going to be Christians, we need to let Jesus Christ's words mean what He intended -- not what we wish they did. If a person likes the King James Version 1769 edition, that is one thing -- but do not misrepresent Jesus Christ's words about "Scripture" to be referring to that, because it is not possible that He was talking about any form of the KJV.

I believe Jesus Christ's words about the Scriptures. I do not believe the words some mortals presume about a 1769 revision of a 1611 English translation of the Scriptures -- no matter how loudly they might claim they are teaching what Jesus Christ taught.

 

[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]

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."

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

I suppose you would be opposed to translations of the New Testament into modern Greek?

The mentality you seem to be protesting about seems to show itself in a different way that what you are thinking. You see, the modern translations are efforts to communicate accurately and clearly what the original Greek texts communicated. On the other hand, there are people who say essentially `All that Greek is worthless because I cannot read it, so let us just dump it for the oldest translation still in wide circulation.' Far from proposing to translate the New Testament-era Greek originals into later Greek, this view proposes to replace the New Testament-era Greek originals with a text in a language that did not even exist then!