KJV Preferred

And yet, the vast majority of those 5500 extant Greek mss overwhelmingly support the "relatively few" that the KJV is based upon.

 

We did not run them off. They left leaving us with their ignorance.

 

To pose a question to Dr. Bob:

Take a small example of the omission of a single word in Mt. 5:11 (RHMA = 'word') by only 3 Greek MSS (Aleph B D) and thousands of Latin MSS, but which is included in ALL but 3 Greek MSS. You say your modern versions don't rely on the Latin but it appears that in this case (and I assure you that this is only one out of hundreds) it is entirely the Latin that is relied upon, except 3 Greek MSS that were more probably influenced by the Latin than vice versa, and 2 Egyptian Syriac MSS and the Egyptian Bohairic and Sahidic versions may indeed fall into this category for this variant as well.

It's utterly fallacious to say you depend on 5500 Greek texts when in fact you rely on 5-10 of them a vast MAJORITY of the time. You also rely on the Latin tradition more than the Greek a good deal of the time, as in the example cited above.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Another example of Latin superiority that Dr. Bob will most likely defend over against basically the entire Greek MS tradition.

Mt. 6:5 all Greek MSS but 5 have, "and when thou prayest, do not be thou ...", while thousands of Latin MSS and 5 Greek ones have, "and when ye pray, do not be ye ..."

Because the latter reading does not conform to the surrounding use of the 2nd person singular, but rather uses the 2nd person plural, it is thought to be original because scribes would have corrected this bad grammar in the midst of a passage to make it more consistent and better. On the contrary, it is perfectly likely that some found it more applicable to change the person of these two verbs from singular to plural to include more people in such an important thing as prayer, or as it was spoken and used in liturgy as regarding a plurality it naturally found its way into the thousands of Latin MSS but only a few Greek ones. It is these few Greek MSS (5 this time) on which Dr. Bob relies, NOT 5500 that he proudly claims against the 7 or so used by Erasmus to formulate the TR. One finds that Erasmus actually had more at his disposal than Dr. Bob uses at any given place in the NT!

Now that is funny!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Here is one reason for the possible superiority of the Byzantine apograph mss: They came out of the historical churches of Asia Minor, the fruitful gentile ground of the apostles, and their authority, particularly Paul.

The Alexandrian church(es) , though it had some men mighty in the Scriptures (Apollos, Athanasius) had no such direct apostolic authority from the Scriptures themselves (Church Tradition identifies Mark as the Apostle to Africa, but has no scriptural proof).

HankD

 

I would strongly urge all here to read the page that natters posted above. It is one of the better articles I have read on the subject. Very brief and to the point, but it covers the question well.


Dr. Bob

Let me get this straight. Your picks for more accurate translations then may include NASB, ESV, and possibly the HCSB? Just trying to pin point your statement, not leading to an attack

 

Same old mindless rhetoric from some KJVO teacher and website. Take a little time to go back over the pages and pages of debate on this issue here on the BB. These baseless statements have been dealt with many times and been proven to be false and meritless.

I would encourage you to stop espousing the mantra of others and do a little sincere study on your own.

Bro Tony

 

Now hold on . You can't say that it is false that some versions leave out or add verses. We can all see this is true. The question is " who has left out or added?" And why do you feel these are accurate readings? (meaning the ones you prefere.)

 

If you examine the facts, you find that these are completely false. In fact, it is impossible for source texts to "omit" when those source texts predate the KJV. If one must argue alterations, then the only conclusion that can be made is that the KJV texts added to the older source texts of scripture, not the other way around as you claim.

Once again, if you examine the facts, you'll again find that this is completely false. In fact, the KJV did not become widely accepted until it became illegal in England to own any other translation besides the KJV. The AV1611's reign lasted only 72 years, when it was replaced with a major overhaul and update. This 1683 revision lasted 86 years, when it, too, was replaced with a major overhaul and update in 1769. (these major revisions were in addition to numerous other minor revisions done over time to correct grammer, spelling, printing errors, etc.). The KJV1769 was the most popolar for 218 years, until the NIV became the most popular translation in 1987.

 

Funny, many people, especially KJVOs, avoid the obvious differences between the books of the Bible that are narrating the same events. These differences are FAR GREATER than are the differences between manuscripts of the same book. yet, for centuries, people all over the world have accepted all those varying books as Scripture. This fact drives a major salient into the "differing manuscripts" argument when one applies the same principles to the differences between books in the same "family" of manuscripts as he/she does to the differences between "families" of manuscripts. Failure to look at these differences in the same light is to use a DOUBLE STANDARD. No, it's NOT apples & oranges. Go figure...the differences WITHIN a family of mss should be LESS than the differences between "families", but they're NOT.

Please think this over........

 

Doug Kutilek is a W-H author.

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

I'm only arguing KJV Preferred because of Phillip's neat little trick, but the question posed here is a good one.

What about Aleph, which omits Jn. 21:25, and is the second oldest Greek MS containing the passage? Does this mean that all the others added it? Of course not, but that since Aleph frequently omits material and even whole verse by a common scribal error called homoioteleuton or plain carelessness, it probably also thus omited this one.

The same goes for Mt. 16:2-3, where only 2 MSS (Aleph B) are "older" than the ones that include the passage, and that by only 50-100 years. All others that omit the passage are from the 10th century or later! So the issue becomes not one of the oldest manuscript but one of the oldest text that is on the manuscript. And in this case, as in a host of others, a text on a manuscript from the 12th century is actually "older" than the text on a manuscript of the 4th or 5th century, and so on.

Take Mt. 17:21, where only 2 Greek MSS from before the 9th century omit the passage, whereas 4 from before that time period have it, and also hundreds that comprise the rest of the MS tradition. If you exclude all Greek MSS from after the 9th century from the discussion, then you actually are only depending on 5-10 MSS at any given place in NT, NOT 5500 as is commonly ascribed, and any discussion of the Bible's trustworthiness as maintained by scribes becomes absolutely absurd.

Yours,

Bluefalcon