The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...

[Baptist4life]

No, it didn't. Inspiration (what was inspired), Preservation (what was preserved), and Translation (what was translated) are not bible doctrines.

One of the main reasons I seldom respond to your drivel is that you read posts to respond negatively, rather than reading them to try to understand the other persons point of view. Then you ask silly "questions" that are nothing more than veiled accusations.

We're done.

Bingo!!!

 

[Logos1560]

Is it surprising that posts intended to answer incorrect claims concerning English Bible translations and to provide accurate information about them would be negatively considered "drivel"?

 

[robycop3]

Yep. None. None whatsoever.

ON THE CONTRARY:
Man invented the KJVO myth out of thin air. No makers of modern Bible versions have claimed any one version is "the" Bible, and none other is. such as KJVOs do. Such an assertion requires AUTHORITY behind it & the KJVO myth has none.

Not the issue.

QUITE an issue when it comes down to the legitimacy of KJVO & translations in general.

It is now.

And was then.

No, but mankind does.

...which does not make any of those changes any less sinful. For example, when I was a boy, homosexuality was not condoned at all, while now it is. But it's still as much an abomination to God as it was 60 years ago.

Nope. God once required animal sacrifices. He no longer does. At one time it was a sin to wear a garment of two different materials. Not any more.

Jesus fulfilled all the sacrificial clauses of God's law, and much of the rest, while still on the boox, is not enforced, especially against gentiles.But that which involves our bodies is still in force, as God declared our bodies as His temples.

Yes.

And that is the problem.

No problem! It's evident that incest is ESPECIALLY HEINOUS to God, and it would have required Him to do a 180 to have once accepted it & now to condemn it.


Loox as if we're getting away from the discussion of authority for KJVO again.

 

[robycop3]

nvented the KJVO myth out of thin air.

Yep....that's exactly what he's saying............which is why, as I stated before, roby lost all credibility with me years ago. And his bashing of KJVO for claiming something without Scriptural support, when he's doing the exact same thing, is highly hypocritical, IMHO.

More than one KJVO claims to have Scriptural support for that MAN-MADE doctrine.

And I have said many times, I am open to any legitimate explanation of where Cain and Seth's wives came from that DOES NOT INVOLVE INCEST. So far, all I've gotten is "They married their sisters", which is unacceptable.

 

[rlvaughn]

And I have said many times, I am open to any legitimate explanation of where Cain and Seth's wives came from that DOES NOT INVOLVE INCEST. So far, all I've gotten is "They married their sisters", which is unacceptable.

The simple, even if inconvenient, truth is that "Eve...was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20) It seems that the "RVO" reads "Eve was the mother of all living, except for those women God specially created to marry her sons!"

I suppose it is also unacceptable that those who belong to Christ are the seed of one who married his sister (Cf. Genesis 20:12)?

 

[Logos1560]

And I have said many times, I am open to any legitimate explanation of where Cain and Seth's wives came from .

There would be serious scriptural or theological problems with your own explanation/speculation of where Cain and Seth's wives came from to which you may close your eyes.

The scriptures support the view that God created only Adam and Eve and that all human beings descended from them. Your speculation would conflict with scriptural teaching about the fall of man-kind and its consequences. "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22), "by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men" (Rom. 5:12), "by one man's offence death reigned by one" (Rom. 5:17), "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men" (Rom. 5:18). The scriptural teaching about how all man-kind became sinners and die then ties in to how Christ, the second Adam, could provide redemption.

 

[Salty]

How many of these "fables" and "facts" do you agree with?

Here is one quote:
“I must have every Word if I speak His message. If I didn't think I had a perfect
Bible I'd close this one, walk out that door, I'd never walk in the pulpit again.”
—Dr. Jack Hyles

 

[TCassidy]

How many of these "fables" and "facts" do you agree with?

FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.

Even KJVO Don Waite, (Th.D. Dallas Seminary) lists 136 "changes of substance" between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV (and he missed several more). Those "changes of substance" are actual word changes that often change the meaning of the passages in question.

The rest are pretty much straw man arguments.

 

[Logos1560]

One revision at 2 Samuel 12:22 in many present KJV editions was not introduced until after 1800.
The 1611 KJV and pre-1611 English Bibles may have "God" from influence of the Latin Vulgate while many post-1829 KJV editions have "GOD" to indicate that the Hebrew text has the name for God translated Jehovah a few times in the KJV.

2 Samuel 12:22 [see Gen. 6:5, 2 Chron. 28:11, Isaiah 49:13] [God--1602 Bishops]
God (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1713, 1715, 1720, 1722, 1728, 1737, 1747, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1812, 1813, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1830, 1831 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1800, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1674, 1684, 1698, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1816, 1817, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1828, 1831 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1715, 1716, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1780 Gill) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1790 Bolton) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1799 Helston) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1804, 1807, 1813 Johnson) (1790, 1804, 1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1810 Woodward) (1811 Hewlett) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816, 1836, 1848 Hartford) (1816 Mercein) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1843, 1845, 1850, 1851, 1954, 1956, 1984 ABS) (1821, 1831 Brown) (1822, 1831, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1832 PSE) (1832 Wilbur) (1834 Coit) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1837 Knight) (1840 Roby) (1842 Girdlestone) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Portland) (1848 IFB) (1853 Butler) (1855 Perry) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1897 Mackail) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1975 CBP) (1976 Holman) (CSB) (WMCRB) (1985 VB) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (1987, 1989, 2001, 2002, 2003 TN) (1991, 2008 AMG) (2004 World) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (KJVCB) (CNB) (Life) (2008 GID) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BRO) (APB) (HMSB) (2012 WSB) (2013 Holman) (2015 KJVFSB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1853 Boothroyd)

GOD (1829 Oxford, SRB, 1996 SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [CCR, CSTE, DKJB]

 

[Logos1560]

Another revision introduced in many KJV editions after 1800 is at 1 Samuel 2:13.

Since the Hebrew Masoretic text has a Hebrew word plural in number for priests, "priest's custom" in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition was revised or textually corrected to "priests' custom" in the 1873 Cambridge.

1 Samuel 2:13 [priests’ custom--NKJV]
priest's custom (1768, 1769, 1772, 1777, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1813, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1835, 1836, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1853, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1890 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 1769, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1800, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] (1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1772, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1831, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1853, 1860, 1867, 1870, 1877, 1879, 1880 London) (1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1774 Bristol) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1777 Wood) (1780 Gill) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1790 Bolton) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1799 Helston) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1804 Gower) (1804, 1807, 1813 Johnson) (1808, 1828, 1833 MH) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1810 Scott) (1810 Woodward) (1811 Hewlett) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816 Mercein) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1843, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1821, 1831 Brown) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1832 PSE) (1832 Wilbur) (1834 Coit) (1835 Towar) (1836, 1848 Hartford) (1836 Stebbing) (1837 Knight) (1840 Roby) (1842 Girdlestone) (1843, 1850, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Cobbin) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1853 Butler) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1873 Cooke) (1876 Porter) (1895, 1958 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1905, 1945, 1954, 1989, 1991, 2004 World) (1908 1957, 1964 TCRB) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1940, 1976, 1979-1, 1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2010, 2013 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1948 WSE) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1972, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2003 TN) (1974 MBI) (1975 CBP) (1976 BH) (WMCRB) (KJRLB) (JVIPB) (Nave’s) (Dake’s) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1985 Open) (1985 VB) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (1990 REG) (MSB) (KJVCB) (2001, 2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Barbour) (KJVJB) (2003 EB) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2008 Pilot) (2009 Strand) (2010, 2015 Baker) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (2011 AMP) (APB) (2011 PJB) (HMSB) (2012 F-S) (2012 WSB) (HKJVSB) (2014 NGB) (2015 KJVFSB) (2015 KAPPA) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

priests' custom (1928, 1977 Oxford, SRB, 1996 SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR, 2011 Transetto Text, 2011 Clarion] (1976 London) (1816 Hartford) (1822, 1831, 1832, 1835, 1839 Scott) (1847 Jenks) (1848 IFB) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1947 SP) (1952 Judson) (1956, 1957, 1958, 1975, 1999 Collins) (1959 Little) (1965, 1968 Royal) (1966 SC) (1970 TN) (1972 NMRB) (1973, 1976 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (CSB) (RRB) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (CB) (CHSB) (1991, 2012 FWP) (RSB) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (TLPSB) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2010 ZOND) (1988, 2007 TCRB) (1996 ELKJV) (1997 NPC) (DSB) (2000 Holman) (2000 Rainbow) (Life) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2003 IGC) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (CNB) (VFC) (2007 SFCB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p HEND) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (NHPB) (2011 KJVDB) (2011 WB) (TBS-WT) (NCE) (2012 Biblica) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 HKJVSBps) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2014 TSB)

 

[Rippon]

You had said that "His Greek text agreed with the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts including those which predate Aleph and B."

There are no Byzantine text types prior to Aleph and B.

There are plenty of Alexandrian ones though.


I had told you to provide information about Byzantine manuscripts that date before 330.

Name a single papyrus that you think fulfills that condition.

Don't give me a song and dance about "Byzantine readings" --I want you to show evidence of manuscripts.

Unless you do as I asked your statement remains false.

 

[TCassidy]

LOL! ROFLOL! "Show me the Byzantine text before 350 AD but don't show me those 150 Byzantine readings because they run counter to my narrative!"

 

[Rippon]

LOL! ROFLOL!

Sounds like you have something lodged in your throat.

"Show me the Byzantine text before 350 AD but don't show me those 150 Byzantine readings because they run counter to my narrative!"

Just do as I asked. Cite any papyrus that is basically Byzantine before the year 330. That's an easy request. Simply comply.
Since you are unable to do so in that none exist, your futile claim is false.

 

[TCassidy]

Once again, Read Harry Sturz. The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984). Here. I will even make it easy for you. See pages 55-69, and 145-208.

It is out of print but some used copies are still available from Amazon for around $30. If you don't want to spend $30 on a book that proves you wrong, come to south Texas and you can read my copy.

 

[Rippon]

Name one. Do not make claims that you can't back up. Don't try to support the unsupportable.

I can name plenty of manuscripts that are of the Alexandrian text-type that have early dates which you can't match.

P4 from 162 A.D. It has 96 verses from Luke and it has well over 90% agreement with P75 and B.

P17 is from the 4th century and has eight verses from Hebrews.

P27 is from the third century. It has 24 verses from Romans.

P30 is from the third century and has 20 verses from first and second Thess.

P32 is from 3rd/4th century and contains eleven verses from Titus.

P39 is from the third century and has nine verses from the 8th chapter of John.

P47 is from the late third century and more than eight chapters from Revelation.

P53 is from the third century. It contains more than 20 verses from Matthew and Acts.

P72 is from 300 A.D. and contains first and second Peter and Jude. (A few Western readings.)

P75 dates from 250 A.D. It contains most of Luke and the first 15 chapters of John.

Most of these are not as long as P4, P72 and P75. Yet even though they are fragmentary, they all are considered Alexandrian and come close to

P91 --3rd century. It has a dozen verses from Acts.

P118 is from the third century and has eleven verses from Romans.

P123 is from the 4th century and has eight verses from 1 Corinthians.

0220 is from the 3rd century and contains a dozen verses from Romans.

Most of the above are fragmentary and not as long as P4, P72 and P75. Yet they are in large agreement with Aleph and B.

 

[Greektim]

Sturz does demonstrate that there are ancient Byzantine readings in the papyri. He makes a strong case that the Byzantine texttype is just as ancient as the Alexandrian.

 

[Rippon]

Sturz does demonstrate that there are ancient Byzantine readings in the papyri. He makes a strong case that the Byzantine texttype is just as ancient as the Alexandrian.

Just identify Byzantine manuscripts that were written before 330 A.D.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Nkjv would be more literal I think than the Kjv version was, as the translators at times did indeed use looser verbiage.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sturz does demonstrate that there are ancient Byzantine readings in the papyri. He makes a strong case that the Byzantine texttype is just as ancient as the Alexandrian.

Does not prove superiority though, would be more akin to being equivalent.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is it surprising that posts intended to answer incorrect claims concerning English Bible translations and to provide accurate information about them would be negatively considered "drivel"?

What is amazing to me is the oft made claim that those of us here like myself who prefer modern translations would be stating byt hat we see the Kjv as being bad, wrong, not needed now etc!