Oldest is best?

[Salamander]

One more thing: Hmmm! Marginal readings?? Necessary?? Did someone change this from the 1611 version??

Ed

You apply these statements to every version while it only applies to the KJB and it's marginal readings.

Since it is in the margin it is not deduced to be the most accurate.

Case closed.

 

[Salamander]

The oldest demonstrable reading is the best and original reading, plain and simple. All rules of textual criticism are based on this principle.

... no matter how corrupt they may appear to be.:wavey:

 

[EdSutton]

The other translations are good translations of the wrong text. Their translated from the Alexandrians who were the latter day Jehovah's witness's they took the bible and changed it and added and subtracted as they seen fit to make it mean what they wanted. check out this video on different translations its only about 6 minutes but gives a quick history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0 GOD BLESS

"What he feeds me I will swallow!" (Sung to the tune of "Where He leads me I will follow")

I'll say only a few things about this. You know, in the interests of historical accuracy, and all that stuff.

There is a great deal of difference between what is known as the collective manuscripts known as the Majority Text, and the half-dozen or so MSs that formed the basis for Erasmus' Greek text.

The text made by the brilliant Erasmus was not called the "Textus Receptus", nor were its successors given that designation by anyone, until 1833, by the printer of an edition. The title therefore did not appear for almost 100 yr. after the death of Erasmus; 75 yr. after the death of Stephanus, and 30 yr. ater the death of Beza +.

Nor did Luther translate any Bible into English.

As they say in baseball, "Three strikes and you're out!"

Falsehoods are falsehoods, even when ignorantly spoken or supposedly well intended.

BTW, welcome to the BB. Drop the agenda, and hang around awhile. We'd love to have ya' bring some good stuff for us to all chew on.

Ed

 

[npetreley]

"What he feeds me I will swallow!" (Sung to the tune of "Where He leads me I will follow")

I'll say only a few things about this. You know, in the interests of historical accuracy, and all that stuff.

There is a great deal of difference between what is known as the collective manuscripts known as the Majority Text, and the half-dozen or so MSs that formed the basis for Erasmus' Greek text.

The text made by the brilliant Erasmus was not called the "Textus Receptus", nor were its successors given that designation by anyone, until 1833, by the printer of an edition. The title therefore did not appear for almost 100 yr. after the death of Erasmus; 75 yr. after the death of Stephanus, and 30 yr. ater the death of Beza +.

Nor did Luther translate any Bible into English.

As they say in baseball, "Three strikes and you're out!"

Falsehoods are falsehoods, even when ignorantly spoken or supposedly well intended.

BTW, welcome to the BB. Drop the agenda, and hang around awhile. We'd love to have ya' bring some good stuff for us to all chew on.

Ed

Are you sure Erasmus didn't have a time machine? Gotta consider all the options, you know.

 

[EdSutton]

You apply these statements to every version while it only applies to the KJB and it's marginal readings.

Since it is in the margin it is not deduced to be the most accurate.

Case closed.

Not so, Salamander. I am referring to the 1611 version. And comparing that to at least one other edition of the version called the KJV that I have. (I am not searching through some old heirloom family copies that are about to come apart, to prove any point, causing them to completely fall apart.)

What sort of 'advanced revelation' led to the 'deduction' that these were in fact, inaccurate readings, and to remove these marginal readings, as they appeared in 1611, from some of the 'counterfeit' editions (which does include most American editions, as you well know, for we've been over the 'ownership' of this version by the English Crown and the Church of England several times on this board.) of the KJV that one gets hold of today? Not to mention whole books removed from the text, from 1611? The fact that I, personally,do not believe the Apocrypha to be a part of Scripture, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was originally published as an integral part of the 1611 printings of what we today generally know as the KJV, and in fact, continued to be published as an integral part of it for at least 150 years, at least in England. So who gave you this special insight as to what is or is not a proper treatment of the version, as it appears? And while I'm on the subject, why do you not quote from the 1611 (not that you even bother to quote Scripture very often on the subject, but prefer to merely declare a statement), instead of some later edition?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Are you sure Erasmus didn't have a time machine? Gotta consider all the options, you know.

Never considered that possibility, before. But now that you brought it up,

"Hang on, everybo...!'

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

...I'll say only a few things about this. You know, in the interests of historical accuracy, and all that stuff...

Say all you want at the new thread I started on the Hovind video.

 

[Salamander]

Not so, Salamander. I am referring to the 1611 version. And comparing that to at least one other edition of the version called the KJV that I have. (I am not searching through some old heirloom family copies that are about to come apart, to prove any point, causing them to completely fall apart.)

What sort of 'advanced revelation' led to the 'deduction' that these were in fact, inaccurate readings, and to remove these marginal readings, as they appeared in 1611, from some of the 'counterfeit' editions (which does include most American editions, as you well know, for we've been over the 'ownership' of this version by the English Crown and the Church of England several times on this board.) of the KJV that one gets hold of today? Not to mention whole books removed from the text, from 1611? The fact that I, personally,do not believe the Apocrypha to be a part of Scripture, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was originally published as an integral part of the 1611 printings of what we today generally know as the KJV, and in fact, continued to be published as an integral part of it for at least 150 years, at least in England. So who gave you this special insight as to what is or is not a proper treatment of the version, as it appears? And while I'm on the subject, why do you not quote from the 1611 (not that you even bother to quote Scripture very often on the subject, but prefer to merely declare a statement), instead of some later edition?

Ed

Get real, we all know the Apocrypha was only there as historical reference.

Scriptural harmony over-rides all other fallacies.

Why don't I quote from the 1611? I'm not German.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

And we all know the reason for the marginal readings, they weren't best.

 

[EdSutton]

Why don't I quote from the 1611? I'm not German.:laugh:

Neither was the 1611 KJV. Last time I checked, it was and is in English. AND according to what you claim to believe, that is and was the ultimate apex in the English langauge, at that. So why do you use a later edition? Or does KJV-1611 really actually mean KJV-1628, KJV-1744, KJV-1762, KJV-1769, KJV-1810, KJV-1868, KJV-1880, to name a few published "cvm privilegio", or any other edition of the KJV, including the large number of KJV-USA "genuine counterfeit", variety and date unknown, such as the on-line "Blue Letter Bible"?

I admit I do not know what is the actual edition of most of my 'KJVs' with the possible exception of my genuine Oxford Scofield® (1917 notes) Reference Edition, which is completely disintegrating, along with some other 'heirloom Bibles' I posess, so they never leave the bookshelf, these days. But I strongly suspect that all the rest are American counterfeit editions, 'cause I'm pretty sure none of my ancestors went to England to get one, nor are they Oxford, Cambridge or Collins editions.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

And we all know the reason for the marginal readings, they weren't best.

My question has nothing to do with whether or not they were "best", not that that is not a "judgment call", in and of itself, but with why it is permissible to remove them from the later KJV Bibles, when in fact, they were apparently included there by the translators OF the KJV, in 1611.

And if "oldest is best" for Bibles, as is the stated premise debated in the OP, whether or not one agrees, how is it OK to that the later editions "take away from" the earlier editions in this regard, while still purporting to be the same version? Never mind the blatant hypocrisy of those for whom this "oldest is best" claim does not hold true to any time before the early years of the 17th Century.

Regardless of the amount of "dancing with the stars" one chooses to do, it is still a basic fact that any two things that are different cannot possibly be the same.

C4K has asked an entirely legitimate question in the OP!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

My question has nothing to do with whether or not they were "best", not that that is not a "judgment call", in and of itself, but with why it is permissible to remove them from the later KJV Bibles, when in fact, they were apparently included there by the translators OF the KJV, in 1611.

And if "oldest is best" for Bibles, as is the stated premise debated in the OP, whether or not one agrees, how is it OK to that the later editions "take away from" the earlier editions in this regard, while still purporting to be the same version? Never mind the blatant hypocrisy of those for whom this "oldest is best" claim does not hold true to any time before the early years of the 17th Century.

Regardless of the amount of "dancing with the stars" one chooses to do, it is still a basic fact that any two things that are different cannot possibly be the same.

C4K has asked an entirely legitimate question in the OP!

Ed

Dander? Rough!:laugh:

I had nothing to do with it. I often find alternate readings and many notes found in the common study Bibles to be distracting.

I get amazed at how the people who put these little notes together think it is so important to give another but relative meaning while the context is perfectly clear.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I get amazed at how the people who put these little notes together think it is so important to give another but relative meaning while the context is perfectly clear.

Perhaps, why then did the KJV translators do so?

 

[Salamander]

Neither was the 1611 KJV. Last time I checked, it was and is in English. AND according to what you claim to believe, that is and was the ultimate apex in the English langauge, at that. So why do you use a later edition? Or does KJV-1611 really actually mean KJV-1628, KJV-1744, KJV-1762, KJV-1769, KJV-1810, KJV-1868, KJV-1880, to name a few published "cvm privilegio", or any other edition of the KJV, including the large number of KJV-USA "genuine counterfeit", variety and date unknown, such as the on-line "Blue Letter Bible"?

Must be the diff between the Gutenburg use of the Germane text and the better English text to give us the English Bible. Reckon?

I admit I do not know what is the actual edition of most of my 'KJVs' with the possible exception of my genuine Oxford Scofield® (1917 notes) Reference Edition, which is completely disintegrating, along with some other 'heirloom Bibles' I posess, so they never leave the bookshelf, these days. But I strongly suspect that all the rest are American counterfeit editions, 'cause I'm pretty sure none of my ancestors went to England to get one, nor are they Oxford, Cambridge or Collins editions.

Ed

Scofield? Do you believe CI was inspired to tell us that only Jews need to repent and all Gentiles need to do is believe?

B TW, how'd you get that little registered trademark icon to show, that is soooooooooo cool!:laugh:

Many Scofiled reprints available with the original notes, but I'll never be a Plymouth Brethren

 

[Salamander]

Perhaps, why then did the KJV translators do so?

To show whwat they had in Scripture was most accurate and the alternate reading was the less.

That has been established for years, so get on board!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

To show whwat they had in Scripture was most accurate and the alternate reading was the less.

That has been established for years, so get on board!

Gotcha - only they were allowed to do so, everyone else is wrong for doing so.

Makes sense.

 

[rbell]

To show whwat they had in Scripture was most accurate and the alternate reading was the less.

That has been established for years, so get on board!

Double standard, anyone?

 

[Salamander]

Gotcha - only they were allowed to do so, everyone else is wrong for doing so.

Makes sense.

Nope, they were dealing with previously understood readings which were inaccurate. Be honest.

Taking a verse out of the Bible and placing it into the margin with the attachment "This verse is not relevent to today" is not considered an allowance.

19,20,21,23?

Oh yeah GOTCHA!

 

[Salamander]

Double standard, anyone?

Be specific with your conjecture please.raying:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Nope, they were dealing with previously understood readings which were inaccurate. Be honest.

Taking a verse out of the Bible and placing it into the margin with the attachment "This verse is not relevent to today" is not considered an allowance.

19,20,21,23?

Oh yeah GOTCHA!

Talk about 'honesty'- I have read a multitude of translations and none of them says any such thing as this.

And I double dog dare you to prove that the KJV marginal readings were 'dealing with previously understood readings which were inaccurate.' Horsehockey!