Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

[jbh28]

I read the Book of Mark concerning Jesus as a Servant. The KJV translators were so wise to translate a right word on Acts 3:26 because of the doctrinal clarification.

Ok, fair enough. Could you share with us why you think it is correct and especially noting the doctrinal clarification.

 

[jbh28]

Fine, if the Critical Text is correct, then the TR did add words and the authors of those extra words and I suppose those who trust it like myself would come under God's curses shown in Revelation 22:18-19.

But either way, you can't say both the CT and the TR are the preserved and pure Word of God. One of them is corrupt.

I believe the TR is correct and the CT is corrupt, what do you believe?

I believe the CT to be closer to the original. Believing the the TR is closer isn't an issue to me. I don't believe it to be corrupt. I just disagree with some of the textual choices. Neither the TR nor the CT is perfect.

 

[jbh28]

I believe the evidence indicates both the TR (you pick whichever one of the 30 odd TRs you please) and the CT (again, you pick which of the 30 odd CTs you prefer) are corrupt.

However, I believe the Byzantine textform is the preserved word of God in Greek, and best represents the autographical readings. However, I believe the Alexandrian textform also represents the preserved word of God in Greek, but with a lesser degree of accuracy.

But, unfortunately, that is a position arrived at via 35 years of study, scholarship, and personal examination of the evidence, something you lack either the ability or character to do. You will continue to rely on illogical emotional arguments bereft of any historic factual basis.

And example of somebody that disagrees with me, but neither of us have a problem with the other persons view.

Well stated!

 

[Winman]

I believe the CT to be closer to the original. Believing the the TR is closer isn't an issue to me. I don't believe it to be corrupt. I just disagree with some of the textual choices. Neither the TR nor the CT is perfect.

You just can't do it can you? Can't take a stand. Trying to ride the fence.

You know, you folks that support (but actually you don't) the MVs come on here and call fellows like me and Stilllearning and a few others heretics and idolators, and not a single one of you has the courage to stand up for what you claim you believe.

Take a stand. The TR and the CT cannot both be the word of God, it is impossible and you know it. Hey, if you have to, put the names of all the versions on slips of paper and put them in a hat. Draw one out and go with that.

But take a stand.

 

[rbell]

Take a stand. The TR and the CT cannot both be the word of God, it is impossible and you know it. Hey, if you have to, put the names of all the versions on slips of paper and put them in a hat. Draw one out and go with that.

But take a stand.

Likewise, you should also.

Which KJV is the 100% word of God? The 1611? The 1769? The 1823? Which one?

"Things that are different are not the same."

No fence-riding, now...

 

[Winman]

Likewise, you should also.

Which KJV is the 100% word of God? The 1611? The 1769? The 1823? Which one?

"Things that are different are not the same."

No fence-riding, now...

Do you think that old false argument is fooling anyone here? Not even the folks who believe in the MVs are fooled by that. The changes in the KJB are well documented. The vast majority were simply spelling changes as English spelling was standardized over the years. Typographical errors were weeded out. They went from the Gothic to Roman style print.

The KJB today is almost exactly identical to the version that came out in 1611, and anybody who knows even a little on this subject knows that.

Try coming up with a real argument sometime instead of parroting what someone who did not know what they were talking about said.

 

[jbh28]

You just can't do it can you? Can't take a stand. Trying to ride the fence.

You know, you folks that support (but actually you don't) the MVs come on here and call fellows like me and Stilllearning and a few others heretics and idolators, and not a single one of you has the courage to stand up for what you claim you believe.

Take a stand. The TR and the CT cannot both be the word of God, it is impossible and you know it. Hey, if you have to, put the names of all the versions on slips of paper and put them in a hat. Draw one out and go with that.

But take a stand.

So are you saying the either the TR or the CT have to be perfect? If so, then what was perfect before the TR or the CT? Cant take a stand can you?

I do take a stand against false teaching of king james onlyism.

btw, the differences amount to a total number of doctrinal difference as...0. Not one doctrine rests on a particular textual variant(ok, maybe if you are a snake handler, but then your nuts ) Now, are there textual variants on verses about doctrine? Yes, but no doctrine changes because of a textual choice. This is not something the Christians should be fighting over. That's why I don't fight over which text. I only fight over the false teaching of kjv onlyism.

 

[TCassidy]

The KJB today is almost exactly identical to the version that came out in 1611, and anybody who knows even a little on this subject knows that.

You, sir, are either abysmally ignorant or a liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your foolish statement to ignorance.

It is well documented that even KJVO authors such as D.A. Waite admit there are "136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form" between the AV of 1611 and the Oxford edition of 1769.

If Waite's numbers are substantially correct he lists 136 changes of substance between the AV 1611 and the KJV 1769 which most Americans use.

So, with 136 changes of substance admitted to by leading KJVO advocates, which is the inspired, preserved word of God? After all, "Things that are different are not the same." According to you only one of them can be the inspired, preserved word of God.

 

[Trotter]

I can’t believe you said this, in response to winman’s call to trust “one” Bible version.....

How can you even know about God, without “what men have put to paper”?!?

We have faith in the one true living God, that has given us His Word.
(And His Word has be preserved for us, by “what men have put to paper”.)

"What men have put to paper" = English translations of God's word. I guess I should have explained my comment?

I can know God through what many different men at different times have translated. I can know God through the witness of others. I can know God by actually studying the original languages He used to record His word.

God's word is preserved by God, not man. Trying to use that old saw as some kind of "proof" that the KJV is God's one and only won't fly here. God did just fine preserving His word before 1611, and He can do just fine without the man-made blasphemy of KJVO. He doesn't need anyone to hold His hand or tell Him how to do it.

You just can't do it can you? Can't take a stand.

I have taken a stand, but it is not a choice that you offered or desired. I don't have to point to a single translation and try to tell God that this is the only true version of His word. I don't worship a man-made Nehushtan, nor do I bow to a man-made doctrine. I bow before God and God alone, and I respect His word as found in both the original languages as well as a host of various translations in a multitude of different languages.

Are all of these translations identical? Praise God, no! If they were most everyone else would be left out as only those who read and understood that particular language of the one translation would be able to use it.

Each and every translation becomes frozen the moment it is finished, as soon as the ink is put to paper. It ceases to develop and is now static. Even when a translation is revised (such as your Nehushtan) it is still static as there are only a few changes made, and even they are frozen when finished. But time moves on, languages change. The language of the KJV is from over 400 years ago as the KJV used more "higher" language than that of the common people. Much has changed since then in the way of the English language. We here in the US are on a different continent and have evolved our language slightly different than the UK, but even the UK do not speak as the KJV is written. This is but one reason for new translations.

stilllearning, Askjo, and Winman, you all go ahead and cling to your man-made Nehushtan. I, along with most here, will choose to follow after God.

 

[jonathan.borland]

In textual criticism(something that Erasmus did and others with the TR text over the years) the trend is that readings will grow over the years. That is why in textual criticism, the shorter reading is generally preferred as being original. (this is the case in any textual criticism, not just when it is dealing with biblical texts) Copyist tend to add words than remove them. Usually this happens when a Scribe puts something(like an explanation) in the text, and the next Scribe thinks it is part of the text.

That scribes tended to add rather than omit depends on whom you ask. James Royse wrote a whole dissertation, much of which is spent demonstrating the opposite of your claim; it is called Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Also, can you tell me how much longer and fuller the 15th-century Byzantine text is from the 5th-century Byzantine text? According to your claim, a millennium of copying should have produced a texttype chock full of superfluous additions. The fact is, however, that the Byzantine text from the 15th century is hardly different than the one from the 5th century. From this it is not too far a stretch to postulate that the common text from the 5th century is any different from the common one from which there is no evidence available: of course I speak of the one from the 1st century.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We here in the US are on a different continent and have evolved our language slightly different than the UK, but even the UK do not speak as the KJV is written.

Slightly? American and English are two different languages. I have learned that the hard way after far too many embarrassments

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oh I see! You follow a man's step.

And when it comes right down to it, so do you.

 

[rbell]

Do you think that old false argument is fooling anyone here? Not even the folks who believe in the MVs are fooled by that. The changes in the KJB are well documented. The vast majority were simply spelling changes as English spelling was standardized over the years. Typographical errors were weeded out. They went from the Gothic to Roman style print.

So, God can preserve His word only in the KJV...but not well enough to fend of spelling errors?

The KJB today is almost exactly identical to the version that came out in 1611, and anybody who knows even a little on this subject knows that.

"Almost identical?" Well now...that's less than 100%. And as you people are fond of saying, "Which one is 100% the word of God?" Your KJVO view just fell apart, by your own admission.

Try coming up with a real argument sometime instead of parroting what someone who did not know what they were talking about said.

I'll leave this argument alone when you manage to fashion a cogent response to it. And remember...you KJVO's practically invented "parroting." Ruckman, Riplinger, et al, anyone?

 

[Winman]

So, God can preserve His word only in the KJV...but not well enough to fend of spelling errors?

You and others just cannot get it. The very fact that spelling or other typographical errors can be spotted and corrected is because a perfect and infallible standard exists.

In 1611, printing was very primitive. It probably took months to print the original KJB. Then these bibles went out to the people. Over time, people spotted mistakes. They were reported back to the publishers. So, they corrected this mistake and sent out new bibles. In the meantime, new typographical or spelling errors were spotted. So, once again they had to make corrections and send out new bibles.

It was not like today where these corrections can be made in seconds. It took many years to even be informed of all the mistakes, then it took time to make corrections and send out corrected bibles.

And that was not the only issue. Spelling was changing. Sometimes there were several different spellings for the same word (color- colour). In time, spelling itself was standardized. Now, all the old KJBs may have had words where the spelling was incorrect. It was really not an error at all, it was just that a different spelling was accepted as a standard.

There were some textual changes made, but almost all of these were also obvious typographical errors. A word here or there may have mistakingly been left out or added. But, because there was a infallible standard, these errors were also spotted and corrected.

The type style is simply a change from Gothic to Roman. There is not change here at all. You could copy some scripture and paste it in MS Word and change the font. Does that change God's Word? Of course not.

And these are the changes that were made in the KJB over the years. It is almost exactly identical to the first edition in 1611. It is not exactly identical because we now use a new type style, some spellings are different (because what was was accepted as a standard spelling changed later), and some textual changes due to obvious typographical errors were corrected.

"Almost identical?" Well now...that's less than 100%. And as you people are fond of saying, "Which one is 100% the word of God?" Your KJVO view just fell apart, by your own admission.

Once again, a mistake by man does not mean that God's word has not been preserved. Because there was an infallible standard, these mistakes were spotted and corrected. You just can't grasp this can you.

Our whole manufacturing process relies on this very method. When Toyota makes a door for the Corolla in Tennessee, it has to fit the frame of the car made in Saginaw. How can they do that? They can do that because they are all using very precise standards. Their measurements are almost exactly the same. So, when they get the door from Tennessee, it fits perfectly in the frame made in Michigan.

It is foolish to have to explain this to people. If you don't understand this I can't help you.

I work in Inspection. We measure down to a millionth of an inch. That is incredibly small. How can we do that? We have standards. When we suspect a standard is damaged or has changed from wear and tear, we send it out to laboratories who compare our standards to even more precise standards. If the standard is correct, they certify it and send it back. If the standard has been damaged or is out of spec, we have to replace it.

And these labs have to send out their standards to companies that have even more precise standards. And the so-called "perfect standards" are kept in Washington, D.C..

This is how our whole manufacturing process in this country (and the world) operates. Everything is compared to these perfect and infallible standards.

And this is why the KJB went through many changes. Errors that departed from the original infallible translation were spotted and corrected. The true Word of God existed and still does.

I'll leave this argument alone when you manage to fashion a cogent response to it. And remember...you KJVO's practically invented "parroting." Ruckman, Riplinger, et al, anyone?

I am not a Ruckmanite, and I really don't know anything about Riplinger except a few things I've read. I am not nearly as extreme as them, I do not believe the English corrects the Greek for example. I do not believe in double inspiration.

But I tell you what, I respect them more than folks that support the MVs. At least they make a stand, they stand up for what they believe. I can respect that.

But ask any of you MV folks which version is the pure and preserved Word of God and none of you will commit to ANY version. You give the ridiculous answer that they are ALL the Word of God.

Now how can the CT and TR texts both be the word of God? The CT has nearly 3000 less words (in the original Greek) than the TR. Either the CT diminished God's Word, or the TR added to God's Word. Revelations 22:18-19 says that if we add or diminish God's Word he will take our name out of the Book of Life, and add to us the plagues shown in the scriptures. This is serious stuff.

Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Do you see what God told Jeremiah? He said "diminish not a word". God does not tolerate 95% accuracy, he demands 100%.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, read those verses and ask yourself this question. How in the world can any man know if he is adding or taking away from God's word unless it is possible to know the exact and perfect word of God?

You can't. If you do not know God's exact words, then there is no possible way to know if someone has added or subtracted to that.

If you want to argue that the KJB is not the preserved and perfect word of God, well, that is something you can argue about and make a case for. But you can't argue that all the versions are the Word of God, because they are all very different from each other.

So, if you don't believe the KJB is the true word of God, then which version is? If you don't believe the TR is the true word of God, then where is it? Is it only in the CT? If it is, then take a stand and proclaim it to the world. This is a life and death matter.

 

[Mexdeaf]

This is a life and death matter.

What you do with Jesus is a life or death matter. No Bible version died for you on the cross.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So, Winman, after 400 years there must surely be an absolutely perfectly perfect copy of the KJT with no mistakes of any kind. No typos, no spelling errors, no punctuation errors.

Where is that edition of the KJT? Or are you happy enough with a mostly perfect translation?

 

[rbell]

So, Winman, after 400 years there must surely be an absolutely perfectly perfect copy of the KJT with no mistakes of any kind. No typos, no spelling errors, no punctuation errors.

Where is that edition of the KJT? Or are you happy enough with a mostly perfect translation?

Winman has it. It's on the shelf, next to his car keys.

 

[jbh28]

You and others just cannot get it.

Again, when a kjv only advocate is out of arguments, they resort to saying that we are just not smart enough to understand.

The very fact that spelling or other typographical errors can be spotted and corrected is because a perfect and infallible standard exists.

Ok, and what was this "perfect and infallible standard" that they compared the kjv to?

In 1611, printing was very primitive. It probably took months to print the original KJB. Then these bibles went out to the people. Over time, people spotted mistakes. They were reported back to the publishers. So, they corrected this mistake and sent out new bibles. In the meantime, new typographical or spelling errors were spotted. So, once again they had to make corrections and send out new bibles.

It was not like today where these corrections can be made in seconds. It took many years to even be informed of all the mistakes, then it took time to make corrections and send out corrected bibles.

Spelling and typos are not the only changes in the 1611 and current kjv.

And that was not the only issue. Spelling was changing. Sometimes there were several different spellings for the same word (color- colour). In time, spelling itself was standardized. Now, all the old KJBs may have had words where the spelling was incorrect. It was really not an error at all, it was just that a different spelling was accepted as a standard.

There were some textual changes made, but almost all of these were also obvious typographical errors. A word here or there may have mistakingly been left out or added. But, because there was a infallible standard, these errors were also spotted and corrected.

Any evidence it was only typgraphical, or did you find yourself against the wall and started to make stuff up like other kjv only advocates do?

And these are the changes that were made in the KJB over the years. It is almost exactly identical to the first edition in 1611. It is not exactly identical because we now use a new type style, some spellings are different (because what was was accepted as a standard spelling changed later), and some textual changes due to obvious typographical errors were corrected.

again, as has already been documents, not all were just spelling or type or typographical.

Once again, a mistake by man does not mean that God's word has not been preserved.

Exactly what I have been saying...

Because there was an infallible standard, these mistakes were spotted and corrected. You just can't grasp this can you.

What was this standard that the KJV was compared to?



I am not a Ruckmanite, and I really don't know anything about Riplinger except a few things I've read. I am not nearly as extreme as them, I do not believe the English corrects the Greek for example. I do not believe in double inspiration. [/quote]Maybe not as extreme as Ruckman, but you speak just like Riplinger.

But I tell you what, I respect them more than folks that support the MVs. At least they make a stand, they stand up for what they believe. I can respect that.

You have more respect for people that have and 3 spouses and lie? (Riplinger lies are well documented)

Example:
Isaiah 26:3

Riplinger's version

NASB: The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace
KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:

Her comments. "A second attempt to arm her (Ephesians 6:17) in her joust with the devil, found the NASB's sword sheathed hiding the key words, "on Thee."
- NABV p 454 Chart is on page 455

Well, according to her chart, the NASB is missing the words "on thee".
Let's take a look at how the verse is really in the NASB
NASB: The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee.

hmmm? The NASB has the words "in thee"(note, it's in you in the 1995 NASB) but Riplinger didn't quote that part of the NASB that included the words and then pretended that the words were removed by the NASB. Now, you may say that the KJV has the words twice. Let's look at how the KJV actually reads.

Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

the words "on thee" only appear once in the Hebrew, not twice. That is why the KJV has it in italics.

KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
NASB: The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee.

But ask any of you MV folks which version is the pure and preserved Word of God and none of you will commit to ANY version. You give the ridiculous answer that they are ALL the Word of God.

What was the pure and preserved Word of God before the KJV? I'm going to guess that you cannot commit to ANY version.

Now how can the CT and TR texts both be the word of God? The CT has nearly 3000 less words (in the original Greek) than the TR. Either the CT diminished God's Word, or the TR added to God's Word. Revelations 22:18-19 says that if we add or diminish God's Word he will take our name out of the Book of Life, and add to us the plagues shown in the scriptures. This is serious stuff.

Or both. Neither are adding words or deleting words. The added/deleted words had already happened and it is the decisions of the CT and the TR to which happened. Neither one made the right decision every time. I for one like the TR reading of I Timothy 3:16 better. There is more than enough evidence for a reading of "God" there in my opinion.

Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Do you see what God told Jeremiah? He said "diminish not a word". God does not tolerate 95% accuracy, he demands 100%.

And was the KJV 100% accurate in 1611 or today. What about the TR. The TR didn't look like it does today till 1884.

Now, read those verses and ask yourself this question. How in the world can any man know if he is adding or taking away from God's word unless it is possible to know the exact and perfect word of God?

Could you share with us this perfect copy so we can compare the KJV and the TR to it?

You can't. If you do not know God's exact words, then there is no possible way to know if someone has added or subtracted to that.

In the very small insignificant areas, we can disagree over which one was original. But to say we don't know what the Bible says is not accurate. Sounds like a liberal.

If you want to argue that the KJB is not the preserved and perfect word of God, well, that is something you can argue about and make a case for. But you can't argue that all the versions are the Word of God, because they are all very different from each other.

What was the perfect preserved Word of God before the KJV?

So, if you don't believe the KJB is the true word of God, then which version is? If you don't believe the TR is the true word of God, then where is it? Is it only in the CT? If it is, then take a stand and proclaim it to the world. This is a life and death matter.

Not a life or death matter. Jesus Christ is life. I hope you don't go down the path of saying that people that don't use the KJV are not saved because THAT would be heresy. Salvation is by Jesus Christ, not which Bible version you use.

 

[Winman]

Again, when a kjv only advocate is out of arguments, they resort to saying that we are just not smart enough to understand.

You are correct here, I shouldn't say you can't get it, I should have properly said you WILL NOT get it.

Ok, and what was this "perfect and infallible standard" that they compared the kjv to?

I am not a scholar, so I do not know exactly which texts the KJB translators used. People say they used the TR, but that is a general statement, because we know they deviated some from this text. The problem is, the texts they used were destroyed.

Now, you may disagree here, but I believe that happened for a reason. We are to believe God by faith, not scholarship.

Another thing I have said repeatedly to you and others and you WILL NOT get, is that I simply believe what God said. I believe him when he said he would preserve his pure (without corruption or error) word.

I cannot explain how God preserved his word, and I really don't worry about it, I simply believe it. Yes, the KJB translators did not claim to be holy prophets. They were simply sincere, humble men who did the very best they could to accurately translate the Greek and Aramaic texts they had. There is no way they would claim that they were inspired like the prophets.

But I believe that God was directing them. I believe God was directing the men who came before them and were willing to give their lives to publish the scriptures in the language of the common people so that all men could learn of God, and not be controlled by the priesthood.

So, I cannot explain it. And no one can go back 500 years and learn all the details of that time. But I believe God was directing men at that time and bringing his Word to the common man.

Any evidence it was only typgraphical, or did you find yourself against the wall and started to make stuff up like other kjv only advocates do?

There is much documentation for this, if you are sincerely interested, you can look it up. I get the impression you really are not interested in any view that opposes what you have already decided to believe.

again, as has already been documents, not all were just spelling or type or typographical.

There were textual errors in the KJB. Sometimes a publisher would accidently add or delete a word in the text. They might write "the sheep" when the text said simply "sheep". These things happen, the bible is a massive work. Sometimes they would make a typo like writing "she" instead of "he". So, that one letter mistake becomes a textual error. That kind of mistake is easy to make.

And sometimes when they were rewriting the scriptures to correct discovered errors they accidently introduced new errors. There have been famous bibles like the Murderers Bible.

"Murderer's Bible" 1801: "Murmurers" is printed as "murderers", making Jude 16 read: "These are murderers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."
"Lions Bible" 1804: 1 Kings 8:19 reads "thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions", rather than "loins". This edition had another error in Numbers 25:18 which read: "The murderer shall surely be put together" rather than "...put to death".

These things happen. But those who know the scriptures catch these mistakes and they are corrected.

What was this standard that the KJV was compared to?

Many scholars believe the Pure Cambridge to be the standard.

1. the text and translation have not altered between the first printed copy and 1769. 2. that if there was a problem, there would have been a public comment, alteration by translators, alteration by printers and/or rejection by King James at the outset; history gives no such testimony of textual or translational defects in the King James Bible, and every change that was made, e.g. in 1638, was in line with purification, namely, of clearing out typographical errors, standardizing the language and introducing other regularization, including in the use of italics.

I will not comment on Riplinger, I know almost nothing about her and her writings at all.

What was the pure and preserved Word of God before the KJV? I'm going to guess that you cannot commit to ANY version.

Well, as I said before, I cannot absolutely say because they were destroyed. It is certain that the TR was used for the bulk of the text.

In the very small insignificant areas, we can disagree over which one was original. But to say we don't know what the Bible says is not accurate. Sounds like a liberal.

I cannot follow what you are saying here. But if you think the difference between the CT and the TR is small and insignificant, I couldn't disagree with you more. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the TR. Either the CT deleted a multitude of words, or the TR added a multitude of words. This is no small or insignificant number, I am amazed you could say such a thing.

 

[TCassidy]

The problem is, the texts they used were destroyed.

Once again you are either lying or are abysmally ignorant. The KJV NT translation committees used the Bishop's Bible as their base text and compared it to the 1598 TR of Stephens. The Bishop's Bible was based on Tyndale's Bible which was based on the 1525 TR of Erasmus.

You say they were destroyed. That is simply untrue.

I have a 1525 Erasmus TR
I have a 1598 Stephens TR.
I have a Tyndale Bible.
I have a Bishop's Bible.

So, again, you are either lying or you are so ignorant you just make this stuff up as you go along. Whichever it is it is a disgrace to the Name of Christ. Shame on you! The Lord rebuke you!