The KJV is sufficient for me

[Alex Mullins]

Grammy:

Hang in there. Any reason to use the KJV alone would be a good one. Not sure about Egypt but the the others have their roots in something different.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Phillip:
Wanted to quickly address your last question, are all the MV's from Satan.

I would say, no. They were translated by ungodly men from corrpted manuscripts and who injected their own humanistic ideas and slants without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is either an incredibly ignorant statement, or an outright lie. I pray it be the former. It is slander in any case. Strange language from a man who claims to enjoy his church which uses MVs and "allows" him to use his KJV.

For a list of all the "ungodly men" who worked on the new ESV (including Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, Vern Poythress and many others) see
The Translators

 

[Phillip]

Yes, I am looking forward to getting my copy of the ESV. I think it is long past due and the NIV is just not my book of choice even though it does clarify a lot of Religious English.

Helen,
That was an excellent post. This is the same way my family uses the different translations in an effort to make comparisons and I often carry two or three translations to church, including (sometimes) one of my Greek New Testaments.

I want to make a statement about texts coming from Egypt. It is true that a few of the older texts have been found in Alexandria. These were kept by Jews who did not live in the Palestine area at the time because of political reasons. I cannot remember the exact name for these alien Jews, but there is a specific name for them and they were very meticulous in their copy process of the transcripts--if not more so than their Jewish brothers in Israel. As far as the KJV goes, remember that many of the manuscripts were found in Catholic churches where they had been stored for years. Considering what the Catholics have done to Christians in the past and other matters, I would be more suspicious of these manuscripts than I would the Alexandrian manuscripts. Besides, the Alexandrian manuscripts only made a very small part of the actual translations. The KJV translators had twelve pieces of Revelation to come up with a whole. Obviously, they used the same techniques used today.

I will also debate the fact that these Anglican translators who translated the KJV were all Christians, my guess is that a lot of them were not. I don't mean to be judgmental toward them here, but it just does not fit historically.

I never said the KJV was not a GREAT translation, but let's be careful what we say about newer translations (especially mainstream conservative translations like the NASB and NIV).

 

[Rockfort]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
[QB]Hang in there. Any reason to use the KJV alone would be a good one. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would include Joseph's Smith's reason... that should not unexpected, coming from you.

 

[HankD]

Dear Alex,

You wrote...

&gt;&gt;Not sure about Egypt but the the others have their roots in something different. &gt;&gt;

Most MVs are based upon the work of Wescott and Hort who developed an eclectic text in 1881 from which came forth the RSV.

In developing this text they used at least two additional manuscripts of Alexandrian scribal sources which were unavailable to the 1611 translators. I believe they were the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus.

There were other mss also not available to the 1611 translators which Wescott and Hort used.
A work which you would probably enjoy is The Revision Revised by
John Burgon, a contemporary and critic of Wescott and Hort.
The Wescott and Hort premise was simple :
The older mss is the better , the shorter reading is the best.
Burgon disagreed vigorously as well as many others, myself included.
BTW , Burgon did not believe that the 1611 KJV was perfect and said so in his book, he was however, appalled at what W&H did to the underlying Greek text after their redaction.
He also said that their primary job was not to amend the Greek text but to correct the English AV to conform to the koine Received Text.
In fact, Burgon actually sat on the committee that commissioned the Wescott and Hort project.

HankD

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> False statement. No translations have their roots in Egypt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No your statement is a false statement.
Most of the mss which the MV's are written from came from Egypt and Alexandria.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


No your statement is a false statement.
Most of the mss which the MV's are written from came from Egypt and Alexandria.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Your statement is a false statement. The MV's are based on critical texts that considered several thousand mss but giving more weight to some than others due to age and other factors. To say that MV's came from Egypt or even the Alexandrian text type is incorrect. To say that MV's often favor Alexandrian readings over Byzantine readings is correct.

By the way, for those of you who have bought into the nonsense about everything coming out of Egypt being sinful or corrupt, consider this: God used Egypt to preserve Abraham, Israel, and the Christ child. If God were going to preserve His Word purely, what more consistent place than Egypt?

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
No your statement is a false statement. Most of the mss which the MV's are written from came from Egypt and Alexandria.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, "came from" Egypt is not what the post said. It said "roots in Egypt." The roots of the mss that the MVs come from are the same roots as that of the mss that the KJV comes from. Their roots are in the apostolic writings. Their journey is somewhat different.

Second, "most" of the mss from which the mss come is slightly misleading. The MVs take into account 100% of the manuscript evidence with varying weights. Therefore, most of the mss are Byzantine in type. A heavier weight is given to the non-Byzantine text forms because of the inherent probability that the non-Byzantine text forms are more likely to be closer to the original (for a number of reasons).

Keep in mind that the KJV is based on less than 1% of the mss evidence. The Majority Text is based on about 90-95% of of the evidence. Only the MVs take into account everything that God has preserved for us.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Keep in mind that the KJV is based on less than 1% of the mss evidence. The Majority Text is based on about 90-95% of of the evidence. Only the MVs take into account everything that God has preserved for us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The above statement proves not to be the case. The KJV is based on the Byzantine textform, which represents 85+% of the MSS evidence. For all practical purposes, the Majority Text the TR(s), and the Byzantine textform are one and the same. The MVs "weigh" the MSS evidence and reject the most consistant textform, the most historically used/accepted textform, the textform with the most cross textual affinities, and the textform most ofter found in the ancient vernaculars and patristics. It seems to me that the "weighing" of the MSS evidence was done with a thumb firmly on the scale. Each of the so-called "pillars" of the Alexandrian/Critical textform have been shown to be either subjective or inaccurate.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To all,

This is refreshing because in the KJV controversy, this is what the debate is about – the original language texts, not the English translations derived from them.

More specifically to Thomas though to all as well to show the other side,

Your assertions are generally not accepted by those “in the know.” I think you know that, knowing your background. That is neither argumentative nor pejorative but surely you know that the majority of modern textual scholars, whether right or wrong, disagree with your line of reasoning.

As for the KJV and its basis, the historical evidence shows that Erasmus had no more than a dozen manuscripts at his disposal, probably less than that. The KJV cannot be said to be “based on” the Byzantine textform in terms of intention. That is a misrepresentation of the historical facts. It can be said to reflect the Byzantine text form but that was certainly not intentional on the part of Erasmus. He used all that he had. It simply was not 85% of the evidence. It was &lt;12 of 5000+ (.24% -- yes that is the correct math). In other words, Erasmus was not using the Byzantine textform because he made a conscious choice based on the evidence. He used it by default (and he got some of it wrong).

The position you hold does have some positive points. However, IMO, those positive do not outweigh the negative points. It may well be the most consistent, most used, etc. but that is only half the story. It may be the most consistent, but 100 copies of an error does not make it less an error. It may be the most used, but as we all know, the majority is not necessarily correct. It may well be that, like Erasmus above, it was all they had. Therefore, they used it by default. It is most likely that had they other options as we do today, they would have used them. The fact is we will never know for sure. You may well be right, but that evidence has convinced only a minority of modern scholars since the modern discoveries of text. In other words, with new evidence, most have sided with the new evidence.

It is true that the canons of textual criticism are somewhat subjective. However, it is no more subjective than the “majority text” approach to textual criticism. Even within the Byzantine textform, text critical decisions must be made.

However, let me re-emphasize that this is where the debate should be taking place. I am not going to run anyone out of orthodoxy over their understanding of the issues in the original language texts as I am sure you will not do.

 

[Chris Temple]

Larry:

Although the KJV was not based intentionally on the Byzantine, it was intentionally based upon the Traditional Text, which turns out to be Byzantine, no?

One thing I've often wondered: if we have books of the canon, so recognized by criteria as authenticity and usage by the church, why do we not also have a canonized, i.e., Received Text, also recognized as authoritative via church usage?

Just a question from a textual non-scholar

 

[DocCas]

You may not be a "textual scholar" Chris, but you can see the obvious. The KJV was translated from the TR of Erasmus, which is a form of the Byzantine text. Just because Erasmus did not have each and every Byzantine MS on the table in front of him does not mean the texts he did have were not representitive of the Byzantine textform as a whole.

Larry's point is absurd! It would be like saying "because Westcott and Hort did not have the actual copies of Aleph and B in front of them, their GNT was not based on those MSS."

The entire point of my argument, which Larry seems to have missed, is that the Byzantine textform, as a whole, is very consistant. Having the 1525 TR or the Complutensian Polyglot, or the 1894 Scrivener in front of you is tantamount to having the Byzantine textform in front of you. All are examples of that textform! QED!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

With all due respect, you are missing the point that I am making.

Notice what I am not saying: I am not saying that the TR is reflective of anything other than the Byzantine text type.

Notice what I am saying: Erasmus did not intentionally choose the Byzantine text type over the alternatives.

Had Erasmus had aleph and B, would the conversation we are having be different? Most assuredly it would.

For Erasmus, it was a matter of default: he had no other options. For you, it is a matter of choice: you have surveyed the options and chosen one based on your apprehension of the strength of the evidence and presuppositions. For me, it is a matter of choice: I have surveyed the evidence and chosen one based on my apprehension of the strength of the evidence and the presuppositions. You and I live in a different textual world than Erasmus did. He did not make a conscious choice to reject a text form. You have. BTW, it is fine that you have; I am not arguing with that.

However, the point still stands unrefuted that Erasmus used less than one quarter of one percent of the manuscript evidence for his text. It underwent a number of revisions to bring it into line with additional manuscript evidence. It still does not reflect the Majority or Traditional text type entirely. Erasmus did the best he could with what he had. Hence, I still maintain that, technically speaking, we cannot assert that the KJV is based on the Byzantine text type as if Erasmus and later editors sat down with the totality of manuscript evidence and made textual decisions from it. Your analogy with Westcott and Hort does not help your case because you are comparing apples to oranges. Westcott and Hort had copies of Aleph and B as well as others. They could assemble an impressive array of the evidence from all lines. Erasmus could not. It was not that he didn't have copies of the Byzantine text form; it was that he really didn't have much of the Byzantine text form.

I really do not particularly care what text a person prefers. I think there are strong arguments to made for the Majority Text. I think there are strong arguments to be made for the eclectic text. I have, at least to this point, sided with the eclectic text because it seems to be more consistent. IMO, the weakest position, by far, is the TR (though I am sure you disagree). There are too many places (as in more than zero) where the TR sides with an extreme minority of textual evidence. Be that as it may, I am just trying to clarify what I am saying so that you do not misunderstand me again.

BTW, I am not trying to change you as I am sure you know. I have no interest in changing anyone's textual position. I am showing to the rest of the readers that there is another side. Oftentimes, people makes broad statements about the KJV and its underlying text that are misrepresentative at best. I am just showing another side.

Chris, as to your point of canonicity, the textual discussion is more complicated than the canon of Scripture is. IMO, that is why there is no uniform textual view. If there were two manuscripts that perfectly matched, then you would have an argument. However, there is substantial difference even within the Byzantine text type.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
there is substantial difference even within the Byzantine text type.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Larry. Thanks for the reply.

I guess the above statement I am having a hard time reconciling with "published statements", like in the intro to the NKJV.

It says that fully 85% of ALL mss traditions are in agreement, and the Byzantine I understand to agree about 95% of the time, with differences being mainly equated to "me" instead of "I" and so forth.

So if we can accept both the gospels of Mark and Luke as being canonical, although they "disagree" well over 85% of the time (I'm assuming), a Byzantine text which agrees 95% of the time could possibly be considered canonical. (I'm not necessarily arguing this, just trying to reason it out).

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
It says that fully 85% of ALL mss traditions are in agreement, and the Byzantine I understand to agree about 95% of the time, with differences being mainly equated to "me" instead of "I" and so forth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right on this. My point is that they are not unanimous. (I guess substantial may be misunderstood). While "I" and "Me" can be a substantial difference there are more major differences, I think in some cases even relating to the inclusion or exclusion of verses or phrases.

The picture is often painted (whether intentionally or not) that we have 95% of the mss that are virtual photocopies of each other while the other 5% are wildly different. Such is not the case. Within the Byzantine text type, there are a substantial number of disagreements. There are places where the Byzantine family is split virtually in half. The result is that a Majority Text proponent has not escaped the necessities of textual criticism, he has simply started with a smaller pile of mss, and IMO, omitted some very important evidence. To see the variants, look at the apparatus of the Hodges Farstad MajT.

For instance, consider 1 John 5:7. In the MajT, the mss evidence (unweighted) mitigates against it. Thomas and others have used a weighting system of sorts that allows them to go beyond the mere numbers and look for other reasons for inclusions. I am not here commenting whether that is right or wrong (we already know my position on that

). I am merely commenting on the fact that it is done. It seems slightly disingenous to accuse the eclectic text proponents of subjective weighting decisions when the MajT/TR proponents must do the same. As I say, they simply start with a smaller pile.

As for your "canonical text" question, I think your question is the one that Theodore Letis tried to address in The Ecclesiastical Text. (I think that is the title). Thomas can probably comment more on that. I have not read the book though I think I do have a review (in a hard copy) by Dr. Price that mentions it at some length. It is at my home so I don't have it here with me immediately. I will look at it again and see if it might address your issue. In the meantime, you may be able to find a copy of it somewhere.

 

[Chris Temple]

Thanks Larry AND Dr. C!

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[swaimj]

Pastor Larry, Chris Temple, Dr. Cassidy,
Thanks for turning this thread into a meaningful and enlightening discussion. A pleasant surprise!

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
With all due respect, you are missing the point that I am making.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't help but think it may be the other way around. You seem to have missed the point. There are two primary textfoms extant. The Byzantine and the Alexandrian. All bibles are based on either one or the other, or a combination of the two. The TR is a representitive of the Byzantine textform, just as the Critical text is a representitive of the Alexandrian textform. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Had Erasmus had aleph and B, would the conversation we are having be different? Most assuredly it would.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Erasmus did not have access to Alexandrian textform readings. Such is not the case. One of my textbooks in Seminary when I was studying Textual Criticism was Frederic Kenyon's "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, A History of the Text and its Translations." Kenyon says, "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected reading from it [Vaticanus], as proof of its superiority to the received Greek text." (Kenyon, page 133). Erasmus had access to Alexandrian readings, but rejected them, and did not include them in his edition of 1535. Erasmus also had access to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which, although a mixed text, contains many, many Alexandrian readings. For the most part those Alexandrian readings were also rejected.

The myth that Erasmus only used a few Greek manuscripts, all of which were of late origin has been disproved many times, but, like the energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going!

Erasmus used only 2 MSS for the bulk of his work, with another 2 for comparison, and a 5th for the book of the Revelation. They were dated from the 11th to the 15th century.

1. MSS 1, 11th Century. Gospels-Acts-Epistles
2. MSS 2, 15th Century, Gospels
3. MSS 2ap, 12th/14th Century, Acts-Epistles
4. 4ap, 15th Century, Acts-Epistles
5. 1r, 12th Century, Revelation

Minuscules 2 and 2ap were the primary basis for Erasmus' text.

But that is not the whole story! Erasmus had access to and knowledge of many other MSS. Through his travels and earlier studies he became well acquainted with a vast array of MSS evidence.

Erasmus had knowledge of and evidently access to the text of Codex Vaticanus (which had resided in the Vatican library since at least 1481), for he divided all the known MSS into 2 groups - those which agreed with the text of B (Alexandrian textform), and those which were of the Byzantine textform.

Bissell tells us that, had Erasmus desired, he could have secured a transcript of B. Tregelles tells us that was not necessary, for Erasmus was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished. This is probably what Kenyon was refering to (above).

Not only did Erasmus reject the Vaticanus (Alexandrian textform) readings, but he also rejected the readings of MSS 1 because they were too much like B (Alexandrian)! Erasmus had a MSS which contained those Alexandrian variants!

Erasmus was also aware of the variant readings through his personal study of the patristics. The patristics reproduce the entire New Testament in their quotations, and contain every variant! He was aware of the "short ending" of Mark, and the variant of John 8.

Erasmus used MSS 2, and 2ap, not because they were all he could obtain, but because (from his great knowledge of MSS) he know they were representitive of the Byzantine textform! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Erasmus, it was a matter of default: he had no other options.

You and I live in a different textual world than Erasmus did. He did not make a conscious choice to reject a text form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
Pastor Larry, Chris Temple, Dr. Cassidy,
Thanks for turning this thread into a meaningful and enlightening discussion. A pleasant surprise!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! This is what I envision the Bible Versions/Translations forum to be about. Unfortunately, we see all to much "I know I am right because I know I am right, therefore, I know I am right" type of argumentation. Or, from the other point of view, the "I use the RSV/NASB/NIV/(you fill in the blank) version and think it is better than the KJV." Unfortunately, there is seldom any evidence presented by either side to support their very subjective opinions.

I believe the KJV can be defended using facts, but finding those facts is long, hard, oft times tedious work, and, unfortunately, all too many "KJV defenders" lack either the ability or the willingness to do the grunt work necessary to uncover the evidence which supports the KJV and its underlying textform.

And, equally unfortunately, the other point of view is equally guilty.

My goal is to shed a little light on the issue, and, hopefully, cause both sides to think about the issue before spewing forth endlessly.

 

[toolman]

Thank God, I have what I believe to be the Word of God, the KJV. I believe in the blood atonement and the virgin birth, which is fully brought out in the KJV and not left out or hidden like in the modern versions. I have read so much on this thread that I am confused.

1Co:14:33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I believe that Satan is the author of confusion, and that is portrayed many, many times on this board.
I have heard from several that have studied deep into the translations and say that the modern versions are the most accurate, they say they came out of this text or that text, this ms or that ms; on the other hand I personally know many men that have studied for years on the same subject that would say the KJV is the closest to the original for the English speaking people. How can you have such a division. The same study and 2 different sides. The same texts and ms studied and one sees it differently from another.

I think that is where we have to trust God for the truth. I believe the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking people, I believe that the modern versions are pre-versions of the Scripture. I believe that there is Scripture in the modern versions, but I believe it is distorted and changed. If you would like to use the modern versions that is your stand before God. I will not use them and will only use the KJV. If I need to understand certain verses and words more I will use a commentary and Gods help. I have heard over and over again that the KJVO's don't have evidence for their stand, but over and over evidence has been shown, just as evidence has been show on the other side. Neither of which has convinced the other side. Satan is winning the battle. Now he has corrupted our churches and made confusion. I believe you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything. I will stand on the foundation of the KJV, even if I continue to be ridiculed.