the easy answer to which bible is the real one

[Rippon]

Wrong again. Only one English bible version was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort, the English Revised Version of 1882.

No, the ERV New Testament was based on the work of Edwin Palmer. I have made that point numerous times on the BB.

Per Wikipedia, Charles John Ellicott said "that there were at most 64 readings in Palmer's text, in agreement with the 1881 text of Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Westcott."

 

[SovereignGrace]

I would like to address the issue of which bible is most accurate....The answer is so easy when you look at the real information....The Authorised K.J.V. IS WITHOUT DOUBT GODS INFALLIBLE word given to mankind...which many have corrupted and hoodwinked multitudes....The k.j.v.bought the world out of the dark ages.Now with its demise and Satan not taking it away.He has confused so many believe the great lie he has successfully sown into The body of Christ and destroyed many lives.....The choice is so easy..do you believe in the one manuscript that westcottt and horte supported...such learned men?.Ha they believe in Purgatory....Founded the Legion Of Mary[ making Mary CO-Mediator with Christ] organisation and denied a tri-une Godhead.....just for starters....yet the R.S.V. was the gold standard of bibles when it arrived.They sowed doubt on the integrity of The K.J.V...useing one lie after another to support their claims......most bible versions come from the erronius text of westcott and horte...which actually was not theirs but it was produced in Alexandria in Egypt..at the school of the gnostics....thats the text that 99percent of bible translations come from.....but historical truth can easily bought into question by some one with a computer and can slowly but surely put doubt into Truth and the ones who try to google and searh useing other searh sites are even more confused. we should look at the bible itself and ask why differences are all anti-the K.J.V....SO LETS LOOK AT SOME OF THEM.1John5;7...is famous as it says in most other bibles a footnote saying the verse was not in earliest or best manuscripts.....Of course they never tell you exactly which manuscripts...WHY?...easy...there isnt any such manuscripts except the 618 textus receptus manuscripts that are where the K.J.V.comes from......so what I am saying is the truth of the matter is do you believe the 618 textus receptus manuscripts that say what the K.J.V.says or the one manuscript from Egypt printed in the fourth century by the gnostics that dont believe in Jesus as part of the Godhead....easy.out of mouth of two or three witnesses.....oh yes westcott hortes manuscript was called textus vaticanus[when i was young..till the catholics saw we could use that verse and christians would never tolerate useing a textus vaticanus manuscript....so they just got on line and started swallowing up the truth and now no more textus vaticanus....on line..they say its an obscure manuscript locked up in Vatican......sure,but till about 20 years ago it was public knowledge..not now..I intend to go on and give much more so sharpen up your swords and prepare to dislike Reg Woodbridge even more....who cares if I leave out spaces...dont use spellcheck....dont write educated enough....well some on this site do....but why not come along and maybe learn somthings you need to know....Look at psalm12;6-7...in k.j.v.and other bibles..and compare2Corinthians2;17...and Revelation22;19......the N.I.V.doesnt know difference betwwen a book and a tree...silly if you get cast out of the book...you go to hell...Revelation20;15...Virginia Mollenkot who oversaw that work was a lesbian and had her mother as her spirit guide.....but of course thats been computer info changed to......so what your going to have to do is start deciding why all the textual criticism is only against one bible.......The word of god...without blemish...Even Acts12.4...the word easter is no mistake.......if you were real smart you would see why.........if not I will tell you next time...from Reg Woodbridge...A true believer.

I guess all those prior to the KJV were doomed to hell. Shucks!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh the misinformation is so glaring it's kind of funny. It's interesting how people just buy into the conspiracy theories and don't actually look at the truth - that God is good, God is sovereign and God has been able to keep His Word through the ages - before 1611 and since. He didn't suddenly go to work in the 17th century and then sit back and think "Well, that's good enough." Praise God for the great men and women who have worked tirelessly to make sure that we have the most accurate rendering of the Word of God in our language and in other languages as well. We have one of them on this board and I've seen the hard agonizing work he's done to just translate one book and how the love of God's Word has brought an accurate translation to the Japanese people.

And just think, when Joseph Smith got the book of Mormon from the angel, it was conviently written in the Elizabethan style of the KJV. That proves to me that the KJV is the only one. Cautious

 

[TCassidy]

No, the ERV New Testament was based on the work of Edwin Palmer. I have made that point numerous times on the BB.

Per Wikipedia, Charles John Ellicott said "that there were at most 64 readings in Palmer's text, in agreement with the 1881 text of Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Westcott."

Palmer's text, like Scrivener's text, was compiled after the fact to give the source of textual variants from the Textus Receptus.

Palmer edited the Greek Testament With the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, producing a Greek New Testament text representing the basis of the Revised Version. In the 1881 Revision it was stated "A revision of the Greek text was the necessary foundation of our work; but it did not fall within our province to construct a continuous and complete Greek text." Palmer's text was a post facto text, designed to meet the need of showing the Greek behind the decisions of the English committee.

 

[Rginald Woodbridge]

I have already corrected your ignorance regarding the dark ages. The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th century. The KJV was published in the early 17th century. Again, you are 400 years off.

Actually the first printed edition of the Traditional Text was done by a catholic priest named Desiderius Erasmus. And the other popular publication of that same textform was done by Romam Catholic Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros.

The KJV was not translated from Greek into English. The KJV was revised from the Bishops' Bible, the second "Authorized Version" published in 1568, which was a revision of the Geneva Bible of 1560, which was a revision of the Great Bible of 1539, the first "Authorized Version" in English, which was a revision of the Tyndale Bible of 1526.

No, again, the dark ages were from the 11th century through the 13th century. The KJV did not come along until the 17th century. 400 years later.

Please, try to get at least one point correct.

Your history is what I call school stuff......you fail to understand that whilst it may not be the official Schhol taught Dark Ages.....Who do you think tried to assanitate King JAMES IN THE GUNPOWDER PLOT....Guy Fawkes a good Roman Catholic who placed over 200 bags of dynamite under where he would be speaking..gaining entry through the London Docks under the Towerebridge.....YOU PEOPLE AMAZE ME......You are so unrelenting as you hang onto utter nonsense......Just because you dont understand the struggle Queen Elizabeth the first had with catholic Spain as the Armada was sent to attack England....and the catholic struggle to keep killing those who had the textus receptus manuscripts...and how westcott horte...who believed in purgatort....declared Mary the mother of Jesus as Co mediator with Jesus..and it was them who lead the revision committe which gave us a bible that attacked the K.J.V......Every revival has stemmed from that book......you name a great bible preacher of last 400 years till the K.J.V[GODS WORD] was silenced as it is being done today......They all were inspired by that book.....and Erasmus was a disciple of Origen the great gnostic who headed the schoolof gnostics in the time the VATICANUS manuscripts were done...you are a very pro-catholic......easy to see by your words...ok answer this...ARE PRACTICING CATHOLIS SAVED?..WHAT SAY YE MY FRIEND...A YES OR A NO.......not a dance with only God knows......he does but by their fruit so do we...so answer me that question please[/QUOTE]

 

[Rginald Woodbridge]

I have already corrected your ignorance regarding the dark ages. The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th century. The KJV was published in the early 17th century. Again, you are 400 years off.

Actually the first printed edition of the Traditional Text was done by a catholic priest named Desiderius Erasmus. And the other popular publication of that same textform was done by Romam Catholic Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros.

The KJV was not translated from Greek into English. The KJV was revised from the Bishops' Bible, the second "Authorized Version" published in 1568, which was a revision of the Geneva Bible of 1560, which was a revision of the Great Bible of 1539, the first "Authorized Version" in English, which was a revision of the Tyndale Bible of 1526.

No, again, the dark ages were from the 11th century through the 13th century. The KJV did not come along until the 17th century. 400 years later.

Please, try to get at least one point correct.

You are a very pro-catholic...do you believe a catholic who practices catholicism is saved.....if you do then you are definately wrong there..if not..then why read the works of decieved people..who worship mary...believe in purgatory..never repent..in confession there told to say hail marys or our fathers which save no one........nothing but blood of Jesus..amen so ANSWER PLEASE

 

[Rippon]

The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th centuries.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the Dark Ages were from approximately 500-1000 A.D.

Out of the approximately 200 English versions only 1 was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. That is 1/2 of 1%.

You're mistaken. The following are examples:
Twentieth Century N.T.
N.W. Translation
ASV
Goodspeed's N.T.
Charles Williams N. T. (in general)
Lattimore's N.T.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are a very pro-catholic...

Ad hominem...

do you believe a catholic who practices catholicism is saved.....

Ad hominem. He has never said such. Proof?

if you do then you are definately wrong there..if not..then why read the works of decieved people..who worship mary...believe in purgatory..never repent..in confession there told to say hail marys or our fathers which save no one........nothing but blood of Jesus..amen so ANSWER PLEASE

What about those who died pre-1611?

 

[Internet Theologian]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the Dark Ages were from approximately 500-1000 A.D.

You're mistaken. The following are examples:
Twentieth Century N.T.
N.W. Translation
ASV
Goodspeed's N.T.
Charles Williams N. T. (in general)
Lattimore's N.T.

So the NWT was actually translated from manuscripts????

 

[annsni]

very ill informed person you are.what do you think bouhgt in the dark ages,and what ended them....you should learn about such things

It's pretty easy to see the dates in history and see that what you are stating here does not square with the facts. I'm sorry that you have been taught wrongly and you have embraced that. I will pray that God will show you just how strong He is and how He has kept His Word from the moment it was penned to today.

 

[Kevin]

And just think, when Joseph Smith got the book of Mormon from the angel, it was conviently written in the Elizabethan style of the KJV. That proves to me that the KJV is the only one. Cautious

This is exactly why I have always felt that the Book of Mormon was a very worthwhile book to read, and follow. Thumbsup

 

[Salty]

Dark ages - according tho the New World Encyclopedia

 

[TCassidy]

You are a very pro-catholic.

Do not post falsehoods about me or anyone else on this forum. Final warning.

who worship mary

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, worships Mary. That is a falsehood.

believe in purgatory

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, believes in purgatory. That is a falsehood.

in confession there told to say hail marys or our fathers which save no one

Nobody under discussion, and especially Westcott and Hort, goes to confession. That is a falsehood. And the pronoun is spelled "their" - 3rd grade English grammar.

nothing but blood of Jesus..amen so ANSWER PLEASE

My answer is that posting falsehoods about anyone on this forum is a banning offense. And posting statements about historic figures requires you either document your claim or withdraw it.

So, either document your above claims, or withdraw them, and offer the forum a sincere apology or find another forum to spew your vile falsehoods. This forum, as with all ethical persons, is intolerant of character assassination.

 

[TCassidy]

Dark ages - according tho the New World Encyclopedia

The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[Mommsen, Theodore (1942). "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'". Speculum (Cambridge MA: Medieval Academy of America) 17 (2): 226–242.][Thompson, Bard (1996). Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans. p. 13.]

Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. The actual term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998) p. 155. Baronius, Caesar. Annales Ecclesiastici, Vol. X. Roma, 1602, p. 647]

Later, historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages (c. 11th–13th century), including the lack of Latin literature, and a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and lack of material cultural achievements in general.

Now, can we get back to the actual discussion?

 

[TCassidy]

Your history is what I call school stuff.

I don't care what you call it. It is history. The way it actually happened. Not the way a bunch of ignorant revisionists wished it had happened.

Who do you think tried to assanitate King JAMES IN THE GUNPOWDER PLOT....Guy Fawkes a good Roman Catholic who placed over 200 bags of dynamite under where he would be speaking..gaining entry through the London Docks under the Towerebridge.

Yeah, yeah, we all know about the 5th of November, which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

You are so unrelenting as you hang onto utter nonsense.

That is my question to you! Why do you hang on to the same lies after it has been explained to you that they are lies?

Just because you dont understand the struggle Queen Elizabeth the first had with catholic Spain as the Armada was sent to attack England.

Elizabeth I's struggle with Catholic Spain was predicated on the fact she succeeded her sister, Mary, as Queen. Her sister Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, who was the daughter of their Catholic Magisties Queen Isabella I of Castile and King Ferdinand II of Aragon. All of which has nothing at all to do with the Dark Ages.

and the catholic struggle to keep killing those who had the textus receptus manuscripts.

Erasmus was a Catholic, as was Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. They are the ones who published the Textus Receptus. In fact Erasmus obtained an exclusive four-year publishing privilege from Pope Leo X in 1516. Cardinal Jimenez's Complutensian Polyglott Textus Receptus was published under a Papal imprimatur.

and how westcott horte

Hort. His name is spelled Hort.

who believed in purgatort.

Not true. A blatant falsehood. Withdraw the falsehood and apologize.

declared Mary the mother of Jesus as Co mediator with Jesus

Not true. A blatant falsehood. Withdraw the falsehood and apologize.

Erasmus was a disciple of Origen the great gnostic who headed the schoolof gnostics in the time the VATICANUS manuscripts were done.

You have to be kidding, right? Erasmus lived from 1466 to 1536 and Origen lived from 185 to 254 AD. In other words Erasmus missed being a disciple of Origen by about 1200 years.

Also that nonsense about Origen and Vaticanus being contemporary? Not even close. Origen died in 254 AD and Codex Vaticanus was produced in 325-350 AD. Almost 100 years after Origen was dead.

you are a very pro-catholic.

And you are on very thin ice.

Now, apologize for making false statements about me, then either post evidence to support your slander of Westcott and Hort or withdraw your false claims. Enough is enough.

 

[TCassidy]

Okay, here is the definitive answer to the thread title:

The easy answer to which bible is the real one.

All of them. There. Wasn't that easy? All bibles are "real" bibles. I knew they are real because I have several of them on my book shelf.

Now it is undeniable that some are better than others.

Some are better because they are based on a better textform.

Some are better because they are translated using a better translation technique.

But all are the word of God in English. And this can easily be proven. Ask yourself this question, "Can a person get saved reading this bible?" If so, that bible is the real word of God. How do we know that? "Simple" as the thread title says. What is God's definition of "The Holy Scriptures?" 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There you have it folks. That is what God says about English translations. If you can get saved reading it, it is a "real" bible, The Holy Scriptures. QED

And that pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Okay, here is the definitive answer to the thread title:

The easy answer to which bible is the real one.

All of them. There. Wasn't that easy? All bibles are "real" bibles. I knew they are real because I have several of them on my book shelf.

Now it is undeniable that some are better than others.

Some are better because they are based on a better textform.

Some are better because they are translated using a better translation technique.

But all are the word of God in English. And this can easily be proven. Ask yourself this question, "Can a person get saved reading this bible?" If so, that bible is the real word of God. How do we know that? "Simple" as the thread title says. What is God's definition of "The Holy Scriptures?" 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There you have it folks. That is what God says about English translations. If you can get saved reading it, it is a "real" bible, The Holy Scriptures. QED

And that pretty much ends the discussion.

Oh no, here come the billy goat's!: 'But, but, but...'

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th centuries. The KJV was published in the early 17th century. You missed by about 400 years.
Actually they liked both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, along with about 25 other manuscripts that read similarly to the two above.
Uh, well, actually, no, they didn't. And they were both confessional Anglicans.
Uh, well, actually, no, they didn't. Both were Trinitarian.
Wrong again. Only one English bible version was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort, the English Revised Version of 1882.
Nope. Out of the approximately 200 English versions only 1 was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. That is 1/2 of 1%.
Uh, well, actually the KJV is translated from a text which is representative of the Byzantine textform which accounts for around 5355 Greek manuscripts. And the comma is missing from all of them except for 5 manuscripts of questionable origin.
No, their primary text was Codex Sinaiticus. Their secondary text was Codex Vaticanus. Neither is a text. And if you don't know the difference between a text, a manuscript, and a codex maybe you should find something else to discuss. That way you will avoid being publicly humiliated. (Oh, and, by the way, there is no "e" on "Hort." If you want to claim to be an expert on him you may want to learn to spell his name correctly.)
Anyone with at least a 4th grade education?
Yes. Okay. I looked. What does God promising to preserve the poor and needy from their oppressors have to do with the KJV?
Virginia Mollenkot didn't oversee anything. She was a Professor of English Literature and served as a style consultant on the NIV.

Please, try to get at least one of your points right. So far you are batting 0.

1. according to Burgon, Wescott and Hort leaned heavily and favored Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and 3 other manuscripts.

2. How many manuscripts are even in existence that contain 1 John chapter 5?

3. While the modern translations are not translated from Wescott and Hort the modern critical texts still lean heavily on the foundational principles Wescott and Hort developed.

4. Psalm 12 is not talking about God preserving his people, it's talking about preserving his word. Besides Psalm 12 is not the only promise to preserve his words

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The American Revision Committee.

Philip Schaff, D. D., LL.D., President of the General Committee.

George E. Day, D. D., Secretary.

Old Testament Company.

Professor Wm. Henry Green, D. D., LL.D. (Chairman), Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J.
Professor George E. Day, D. D. (Secretary), Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Professor Charles A. Aiken, D. D., Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J.
The Rev. T. W. Chambers, D. D., Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, N. Y.
Professor Thomas J. Conant, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
Professor John De Witt, D. D., Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, N. J.
Professor George Emlen Hare, D. D., LL.D., Divinity School, Philadelphia.
Professor Charles P. Krauth, D. D., LL.D., Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Professor Charles M. Mead, D. D., Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Professor Howard Osgood, D. D., Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
Professor Joseph Packard, D. D., Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va.
Professor Calvin E. Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. Professor James Strong, S. T. D., Theological Seminary, Ma-dison, N. J.
Professor C. V. A. Van Dyck, LL.D., D. D., M. D., Beirut, Syria. (Advisory Member on questions of Arabic.)

New Testament Company.

Ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey, D. D., LL.D. (Chairman), New Haven, Conn.
Professor J. Henry Thayer, D. D. (Secretary), Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Professor Ezra Abbot, D. D., LL.D., Divinity School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
The Rev. J. K. Burr, D. D., Trenton, N. J.
President Thomas Chase, LL.D., Haverford College, Pa.
Chancellor Howard Crosby, D. D., LL.D., New York University, New York.
Professor Timothy Dwight, D. D., Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Professor A. C. Kendrick, D. D., LL.D., University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y.
The Right Rev. Alfred Lee, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware.
Professor Matthew B. Riddle, D. D., Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.
Professor Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. I)., Union Theological Seminary, New York.
Professor Charles Short, LL.D. (Secretary), N. Y.
The Rev. Edward A. Washburn, D. D., Calvary P. E. Church, N. Y.

Weren't Abott and Thayer both Unitarians?

 

[TCassidy]

1. according to Burgon, Wescott and Hort leaned heavily and favored Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and 3 other manuscripts.

Correct.

2. How many manuscripts are even in existence that contain 1 John chapter 5?

About 350 Greek manuscripts. And out that 350 only Minuscules Codex Montfortianus (Minuscule 61 Gregory-Aland, c. 1520), 629 (Codex Ottobonianus, 14th/15th century), 918 (16th century), 2318 (18th century) contain the comma.

3. While the modern translations are not translated from Wescott and Hort the modern critical texts still lean heavily on the foundational principles Wescott and Hort developed.

Correct. With the exception of the ERV of 1881, and its American counterpart, the ASV of 1901, no current bible was translated exclusively from the 1881 Greek New Testament published by Westcott and Hort.

4. Psalm 12 is not talking about God preserving his people, it's talking about preserving his word. Besides Psalm 12 is not the only promise to preserve his words

So, Jordan, are you saying the KJV is wrong in Psalm 12:6-7? After all, the translation committee included a marginal note indicating "thou shalt preserve them" is referring to the poor and needy of verse 5 and not the "words" of verse 6. Hebrew grammar absolutely forbids it (and God is not so stupid He doesn't understand Hebrew grammar) and the KJV translators even made sure their readers understood what "them" was referring to.

And nobody has claimed bible preservation is not taught elsewhere in the bible. In fact the concept is everywhere in the bible. The point is that the original poster doesn't understand what Psalm 12:6-7 is talking about. (He has proven he doesn't know very much of anything and just keeps repeating lies over and over again ignoring the fact those lies have been shown to be lies over and over again. )

Here is a copy of the marginal note in the 1st edition, 1st printing, of the KJV/AV of 1611.