The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

[Will J. Kinney]

Archangel says: "The issue can be summed up in a single question: why is it that relatively well-attested Old Latin readings like Lk. 3:22 were rejected in the TR/KJV while other Old Latin readings with far worse attestation like "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 were accepted? Answer: because of the textual decisions of Erasmus."

Archy, several things are wrong with your assessment here. First of all, several Old Latin copies read just like the KJB in Luke 3:22. The Old Latin copies are few today and have been corrupted, but the KJB reading is amply supported.

Secondly, and more importantly, your whole approach to the Scriptures is man centered and more akin to humanistic evolution that to the sovereignty of God.

God did not use only Erasmus, but also the texts of Stephanus and Beza, and He guided the KJB translators both as to the proper texts and the correct translation into the English text itself. I have a settled, unchangeable, inerrant Bible, and you have a mutitude of conflicting versions that continue to change from one edition to the next with no settled text.

I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not.

This is a simple and critical distinction between your views and mine.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Will,isn't it amazing how they ALWAYS pull that one out of their hat when the get their "cage rattled"? It never fails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, the truth never fails. It's always best to pull that one out early to silence the errant. They never have an adequate answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen, I have written a response to this question before. You may not like the answer, but it is a whole lot better than the one the "Who knows what God has said?" crowd who not only can't tell us where God's infallible words were before 1611 but more importantly can't tell us where they are today.

Here is the best answer I have so far. Now, why don't you Whateverists tell us where it was and is now?


http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

Will Kinney

 

[ScottEmerson]

I'm not a KJV-onlyist, and I know where God's word was before 1611, just as most all of those who are not KJVO do as well. The Word of God is found in the manuscripts that were passed down from generation to generation. Some of them do have errors, but this is not God's fault - it is the blame of fallen man. It's no small miracle that we have the texts that we have today, and I believe that God worked to preserve what we had.

The one case that is against you, which is quite a large logical error, it would seem, is the statement,

"We have only a very small portion remaining of all the Bibles and manuscripts that ever existed. Perhaps as little as one one hundreth, so there is no sure way of knowing what the other manuscripts and Bibles said - just as we do not have the "originals" and can't prove what they said. Of those that remain, no two are exactly alike in every detail, but of the approximately 5,000 portions and fragments that we have today, about 95% agree about 99% of the time with the King James Bible readings. The other 5% differs a great deal even among themselves, and it is this 5% that is used in most of today's "bibles". "

As you admit, no two are exactly alike in every detail. If God was to perfectly preserve his word in every generation, then which of the Old Latin Manuscripts was the one He was preserving?


You do make a point that I wish to repeat: "God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people." He promised to preserve His words, not in the way we think they should have been preserved, but in a way that they would be known to God's believing people. The translations, modern or not, English or not, KJV or not, are proclaiming the Truth of the gospel to people around the globe. And that is what He promised - not that in one specific language we would have a perfect Bible.

The KJV is not infallible; none of the translations are. Those errors have been shown over and over by a wide variety of scholars, both in the 21st in previous centuries. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it less true.

 

[HankD]

Secondly, and more importantly, your whole approach to the Scriptures is man centered and more akin to humanistic evolution that to the sovereignty of God.

How so Will, if Archangel believes that God chose to use other "sinful" men (all have sinned...) than those whom you have chosen to be instrumental in the preservation of the Word of God who are you to make this judgement of him.

God did not use only Erasmus, but also the texts of Stephanus and Beza, and He guided the KJB translators both as to the proper texts and the correct translation into the English text itself. I have a settled, unchangeable, inerrant Bible, and you have a mutitude of conflicting versions that continue to change from one edition to the next with no settled text.

I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not.

Will, we have been down this road so many times...
Which edition do you hold in your hands?
I have several of the KJB editions/revisions all different, must I hold them all?

And then Will, doesn't your language bother you?
From whence comes this attitude of
"I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not"? na-na-na-na-na-na!

"conflicting texts" At the time of the KJB translation there were several conflicting English texts and finally the KJB became predominant. How do you know that is not what is going on right now for the next predominant English text of this generation?

Even if what you are saying concerning the KJV (1611-1769?) is perfectly true, where is the following scriptural attitude:

James 3
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

I'm sorry Will but when the KJVO show up there is no peace but only strife, insult and innuendo.

Do you really believe every word as you say you do?

What about James 3:16-18?

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney Archangel says: "The issue can be summed up in a single question: why is it that relatively well-attested Old Latin readings like Lk. 3:22 were rejected in the TR/KJV while other Old Latin readings with far worse attestation like "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 were accepted? Answer: because of the textual decisions of Erasmus."

Archy, several things are wrong with your assessment here. First of all, several Old Latin copies read just like the KJB in Luke 3:22. The Old Latin copies are few today and have been corrupted, but the KJB reading is amply supported.

By WHAT?

Secondly, and more importantly, your whole approach to the Scriptures is man centered and more akin to humanistic evolution that to the sovereignty of God.

No, Will-YOURS is. You try to LIMIT GOD in His presentation of His own word, using a man-made fable as your basis.

God did not use only Erasmus, but also the texts of Stephanus and Beza, and He guided the KJB translators both as to the proper texts and the correct translation into the English text itself.

As He did with many others.

I have a settled, unchangeable, inerrant Bible, and you have a mutitude of conflicting versions that continue to change from one edition to the next with no settled text.

As if the KJV has not changed????????

Even rabid KJVOer Dr. Donald Waite admits that there are 126 changes between the AV 1611 and the 1769 Blayney's Edition.

I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not.

How do you KNOW that? How can you PROVE that?

This is a simple and critical distinction between your views and mine.

Will K

Yep! Archy's is correct & yours is incorrect. He's provided FACTS, while you and the other Onlyists have provided guesswork and opinion.

 

[robycop3]

Will Kinney:Gentlemen, I have written a response to this question before. You may not like the answer, but it is a whole lot better than the one the "Who knows what God has said?" crowd who not only can't tell us where God's infallible words were before 1611 but more importantly can't tell us where they are today.

Here is the best answer I have so far. Now, why don't you Whateverists tell us where it was and is now?

Will, you've changed the question ever so slightly to try to cover up the answer that you DON'T LIKE. The question ORIGINALLY was: "Where was the word of God IN ENGLISH before 1611?" The answer is, "In the well-known English versions made before 1611, none of which are alike." You don't like that answer because it proves Onlyism wrong. You cannot deny it's the CORRECT answer unless you deny God's preservation of His word.

We non-Onlyists believe God has preserved and presented His word AS HE HAS CHOSEN, and that He is NOT limited by any man-made fables telling Him how some men believe He SHOULD have presented His word, in only THEIR way. Nor do we believe God retired in 1611, leaving His word unsupervised and unguided, with no further presentations possible.

Will, you and some of your buddies tell us who don't believe your Mother Goose stories that we have no final authority, that we believe no Bible. That's really just a cop-out because you cannot address such major basic problems as the total lack of Scriptural support for onlyism, and the plethora of differently-worded BVs made throughout the history of English and just about every old major language, with each of them being in the language of its day. And you readily admit that you CANNOT PROVE most of your KJVO assertions.

You accuse US of lacking proof while just the OPPOSITE is true; WE have PROVEN the origins of modern KJVO beginning with Wilkinson's {i]"Our Authorized Bible Vindicated"[/i]while YOU can't adequately explain the frequent quotes by Jesus and His apostles made from other versions of the OT than what's translated into our Bibles. Instead, you folks are always inventing new excuses such as the copyrights issue, and such classics intelligent study as, "The NIV denies Christ's Deity at Luke 2:48 by calling Joseph His father!" without bothering to read five verses further in the KJV!!!!!!

And that's not to mention the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD, which we've PROVEN exists. A prime example of this proof is 2 Samuel 13:34, where the Onlyist claims that the NIV adds these words to the text: "The watchman went and told the king, I see men in the direction of Horonaim, on the side of the hill", but the Onlyist admits they're found in the LXX-but on the other hand, it's OK for the KJV to have added the words "the image of" to Romans 11:4, without them being found in ANY known ancient mss.

Yep, you're right, Will-We DON'T like your answers, not because we don't like you or anything personal; it's because your "answers" are EXCUSES, and are usually wrong, and unprovable at best. But then that's the basic difference between KJVO and multi-versionism-FACT vs FABLE, GUESSWORK, OPINION, & EXCUSES.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Even rabid KJVOer Dr. Donald Waite admits that there are 126 changes between the AV 1611 and the 1769 Blayney's Edition.

Actually, D.A. Waite is neither "rabid" nor KJVO in the usually accepted definition of that term. He is KJV preferred. And he does not "admit there are 126 changes" between the 1611 and the 1769, he lists 421 changes, and identifies 136 of them as "substantial changes." If anything Dr. Waite would be called "TR only."

It seems to me you are as guilty of "drive by quoting" of Dr. Waite as the KJVOs are accused of doing with Burgon's published works.

 

[HankD]

No No, KJVOs do drive bys, (W&H)ers do Hit 'n Runs.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Actually, D.A. Waite is neither "rabid" nor KJVO in the usually accepted definition of that term. He is KJV preferred. And he does not "admit there are 126 changes" between the 1611 and the 1769, he lists 421 changes, and identifies 136 of them as "substantial changes." If anything Dr. Waite would be called "TR only."

I base my statement about Dr. Waite's "rabid" KJVOism upon such statements by the man himself such as found here:

http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_defenders/KJV-DonaldWaite.htm

As you see, he follows that old Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller line.

It seems to me you are as guilty of "drive by quoting" of Dr. Waite as the KJVOs are accused of doing with Burgon's published works.

Dr. Waite is PRESIDENT of the "Dean Burgon Society" which has publicized those passages from Burgon's work while totally ignoring those critical of the TR.

As for the exact number of changes Dr. Waite has reported, I've seen different numbers presented in different articles. I'll just say that they're between 120 & 140 & let the spyglass-wielding critics sort it out among themselves. It may have been "drive-by quoting", but I used a homing missile. Sometimes I don'r bother with all the details when I know the usual readership has already filled in all the blanks.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
I base my statement about Dr. Waite's "rabid" KJVOism upon such statements by the man himself such as found here:

Not a word about KJVO in that entire testimony!

As for the exact number of changes Dr. Waite has reported, I've seen different numbers presented in different articles. I'll just say that they're between 120 & 140 & let the spyglass-wielding critics sort it out among themselves.

Perhaps if you would actually read what the man wrote instead of passing along mere gossip you would be more accurate. I refer you to the booklet "The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version" by D.A. Waite, published by the Bible for Today, Collingswood, NJ, page 4, Roman numeral "V", paragraph "A." "The TOTAL Number of Translation Changes . . . " " . . . 421 . . . "

It may have been "drive-by quoting", but I used a homing missile. Sometimes I don'r bother with all the details when I know the usual readership has already filled in all the blanks.

Yes, well, when KJVOs are wrong on details in their posts you seem to be the first to jump on them. Turn about is fair play. To hold them to a higher standard than you hold yourself seems to me to employ the double standard KJVOs are often criticized for having.

In other words, "If the shoe fits, don't go away barefooted!"

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hank, you posted: "And then Will, doesn't your language bother you?
From whence comes this attitude of
"I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not"? na-na-na-na-na-na!
"conflicting texts" At the time of the KJB translation there were several conflicting English texts and finally the KJB became predominant. How do you know that is not what is going on right now for the next predominant English text of this generation?
Even if what you are saying concerning the KJV (1611-1769?) is perfectly true, where is the following scriptural attitude:
James 3
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
I'm sorry Will but when the KJVO show up there is no peace but only strife, insult and innuendo.


Hank, your criticism of what you perceive my attitude to be of " I have Scriptures and you do not, na-na-na-na-na-na!" is much like that of the unbelieving world when we tell them that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the only way to God. They think we are being proud and self righteous in thinking that we alone have the truth and they do not.

You and the others who think God's inspired words are "out there somewhere" in all those conflicting manuscripts have no preserved, infallible Bible you can point us to. Your view sounds very pious and tolerant yet means nothing and has no substance.

The Bible of the Month Club, of which you apparently are a card carrying member, has no sure words of God and you think we who believe we do in the King James Holy Bible are uncharitable for pointing this out to you.

Your nasb, niv, esv, etc. all disagree with each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses, and they all depart from the Hebrew texts many times. They are false witnesses and he who has eyes to see this obvious truth knows this to be the case.

God will either reveal this to you by His Spirit or He won't. In the same way that God reveals Himself to whom He will, and doesn't to others, so also with the truth of where the inspired, inerrant, preserved words of God are to be found today.

The spiritually blind will always think that those who claim to see are presumptuous.

Do you personally believe that any text or any translation is the inerrant, inspired, complete words of God that you would not "correct" in any way? I already know your answer if you are honest, but I doubt you will fess up to what you really believe about this issue.

Here is one example of modern scholarship I found just this morning.

Job 27:18 Here we have another blunder found in the NASB. All Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Geneva, and the ESV (2001 English Standard Version) read: "He buildeth his house as a MOTH, and as a booth that the keeper maketh."

The word is clearly "moth" (# 6211 gahsh) and is found 7 times in the Hebrew texts, as in Job 4:19 "are crushed before the moth", and 13:28 "as a garment that is moth eaten".

However the RSV and the NASB read: "He has built his house like A SPIDER'S WEB." If you look at the NASB complete concordance you will see there is no number by their listing of "spider's web". That is because there is no such word in the Hebrew text. The NASB does not tell you when they depart from the Hebrew texts, but the RSV has a footnote telling us to compare the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but the Hebrew reads "moth".

Well, the LXX and the Syriac are interesting. The Greek LXX reads: "And his house is gone like moths, and like a spider's web", while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has: "The wicked has built his house upon a spider's web."

It is also of interest that the RSV has "spider's web", while the NRSV says: "he builds his house LIKE A NEST", and then the ESV, which is a revision of the previous two, goes back to "moth". The NIV adds a word not found in any text but it still is similar to the KJB reading with: "The house he builds is like a moth's cocoon."

I can show you scores of such examples of how the modern versions pervert the true words of God and call it "scholarship".

Will K

 

[tinytim]

I have enough guts to admit this:
No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible. There is so much pride in the KJVO beliefs that it is sinful.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hank, your criticism of what you perceive my attitude to be of " I have Scriptures and you do not, na-na-na-na-na-na!" is much like that of the unbelieving world when we tell them that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the only way to God. They think we are being proud and self righteous in thinking that we alone have the truth and they do not.

Comparing those who do not believe in Christ with those who do not believe in KJVO is like comparing apples and oranges. That's about the silliest statement I've seen in awhile.

You and the others who think God's inspired words are "out there somewhere" in all those conflicting manuscripts have no preserved, infallible Bible you can point us to. Your view sounds very pious and tolerant yet means nothing and has no substance.

You're placing your own bias upon what we should or shouldn't find. I haven't heard or seen one non-KJVO answer that God's word is "out there somewhere." Would you care to reference a link for us, perhaps? We can easily show you what we believe, and have done so often. It means a great deal and has a lot of substance to it, but your blinders prevent you from seeing it.

The Bible of the Month Club, of which you apparently are a card carrying member, has no sure words of God and you think we who believe we do in the King James Holy Bible are uncharitable for pointing this out to you.

It's not a matter of charity - it's a matter of intellectual and theological honesty. Yet more innuendo and those other things that Hank has pointed out.

Your nasb, niv, esv, etc. all disagree with each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses, and they all depart from the Hebrew texts many times. They are false witnesses and he who has eyes to see this obvious truth knows this to be the case.

All of them are our best understanding in translations. They don't disagree as much as they offer different points of view. The gospels also show the same comparison - different points of view, yet no disagreement. Just because you call a truth obvious does not make it so.

God will either reveal this to you by His Spirit or He won't. In the same way that God reveals Himself to whom He will, and doesn't to others, so also with the truth of where the inspired, inerrant, preserved words of God are to be found today.

How pious! Do you not think that those of us on the board who are not KJVO believe that God has blessed whatever Bible we use? Do you think that GOd has blinded those servants who are not KJVO? You're taking the rhetoric to a whole new level here. Perhaps it is you whose eyes are closed. I will say in complet truthfulness, honesty, and candor that God has led me to use several versions for my ministry with students and with adults. Sometimes the KJV, sometimes the NIV, sometimes the Message, and, today, the NLT. God has used these texts to bring others to a saving knowledge of Him, so who exactly are you to say that I'm a liar, or that anyone else here is?

The spiritually blind will always think that those who claim to see are presumptuous.

Those who are really able to see usually think that the blind need to open their eyes.

Do you personally believe that any text or any translation is the inerrant, inspired, complete words of God that you would not "correct" in any way? I already know your answer if you are honest, but I doubt you will fess up to what you really believe about this issue.

I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts. Let's ask this question for you, shall we: Can you point to ONE (just one) Greek manuscript that is completely perfect and without error?

Somehow I doubt that.

 

[HankD]

Do you personally believe that any text or any translation is the inerrant, inspired, complete words of God that you would not "correct" in any way? I already know your answer if you are honest, but I doubt you will fess up to what you really believe about this issue.

Then why do you ask?

But, I'll answer you when you have answered my inquiry, because the fact is you are guilty of your own oblique accusation against me (IMO) which I can prove with this question : Which edition of the KJB is the "pure" Word(s) of God, the 1611 Edition of the KJB or the 1769?

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Which edition of the KJB is the "pure" Word(s) of God, the 1611 Edition of the KJB or the 1769?

YES!!! Now,answer the man's question(s).

 

[timothy 1769]

The 1611 had many printer's errors. English bible printing during that period was notoriously poor. Even so, according to D.A. Waite there are only 135 instances in the entire Bible where the sense is affected between the 1611 and 1769 editions. The 1769, I trust, has removed all such errors of printing, in addition to updating the spelling. The 1611 printing is still nice for historical reasons, I'm glad it's still available.

 

[HankD]

YES!!! Now,answer the man's question(s).

I didn't ask you, besides you are an heretic because the 1611KJB contains the Apocrypha and you believe that it is the Word of God by your own admission.

HankD

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />YES!!! Now,answer the man's question(s).

I didn't ask you, besides you are an heretic because the 1611KJB contains the Apocrypha and you believe that it is the Word of God by your own admission.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV added to the Word of God by including page numbers!

 

[HankD]

The NIV added to the Word of God by including page numbers!

I have inside information that the NIV page numbers are inspired.

HankD

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Which edition of the KJB is the "pure" Word(s) of God, the 1611 Edition of the KJB or the 1769?

YES!!! Now,answer the man's question(s). </font>[/QUOTE]They are observably not the same. One must be pure, and one must be impure. Which is it - a or b?