KJV Preferred

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Phillip:
The Bibles that I say have inferior source documents are the standard MVs such as NIV, HCSB, ESV, etc.

I am not KJV preferred and part of the reason is the inferior source documents (7 Greek texts and Latin Vulgate) of the AV compared to 5500 Greek texts and NO Latin for the modern versions.

I do stand with "formal equivalence" in translations, so that eliminates many of the modern versions.

And, God forbid, some parts of the AV.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I am not KJV preferred and part of the reason is the inferior source documents (7 Greek texts and Latin Vulgate) of the AV compared to 5500 Greek texts and NO Latin for the modern versions.

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

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Since all of you are so proud of running off the KJVO crowd; let's try another experiment to liven up the old Versions/Translations debate thread.

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

 

[Bluefalcon]

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

 

[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

 

[HankD]

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

 

[pastorjeff]

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

 

[Phillip]

I have been in and out due to business obligations and have not had time to post.

I wish to thank those involved for carrying on a scholarly and non-emotional conversation concerning the accuracy of the source manuscripts as compared to the original manuscripts.

Let me ask a question: Please do not misinterpret this and try to understand what I am saying:

Why would God allow manuscripts of "greater" accuracy to be found almost two centuries after the last of the originals were created?

And why do scholars assume that they are more accurate? Due to age? Due to location? Due to the quality of the scribes who maintained the manuscripts? Why?

Thanks for showing up Bluefalcon, your knowledge is greatly appreciated (especially since you are on our side.)

 

[Phillip]

Interesting post and link, natters, Now I'm beginning to wonder if it is not time to develop a new critical text?

 

[Bro Tony]

For me it is a matter of error and selectivness.

What I mean is, other versions have left out verses, changed verses, and have even tried to lower the Deity of Christ.

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

 

[pastorjeff]

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.)

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Jeremiah Hart:
What I mean is, other versions have left out verses, changed verses, and have even tried to lower the Deity of Christ.

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.

But the KJV has stood the test of Time.

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.

 

[robycop3]

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........

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Good article, worth the read:

"Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?"

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_westcott.htm

Doug Kutilek is a W-H author.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Doug Kutilek is a W-H author.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[rsr]

He channels W&H, you know ...

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by Johnv:
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.

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

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Askjo:
"Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?"
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_westcott.htm

Doug Kutilek is a W-H author.

That is truly the most ludicrous thing I've heard you say, Askjo, and I've heard some really really bad ones.

You have either (1) misspoken (2) parroted another looney-tune or (3) slandered a brother. My thought is 3 because I've witnessed you funciton before.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
Good article, worth the read:

"Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?"

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_westcott.htm

Doug Kutilek is a W-H author. </font>[/QUOTE]He may be, but if you READ the article you will find he treated both the TR and WH with equal fairness, even to the point of making me post above that maybe it is time to consider a new critical text. (I said that tongue-in-cheek, but the point is, the author was not exactly excited about the "correctness" of either set, in light of all of the evidence we have today.)

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by pastorjeff:
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

I dislike the NASB but enjoy the ESV. Actually I like to translate the text myself first, then compare it to others.

I also start with the Stephanos 1555 Greek text, then compare it to the better Greek for variations that may make a difference.