Responding to my label of point #1 above.
If I did not know anything about the LXX except it was a Greek translation of the OT that was already in existence during the days of Jesus on the earth, and I knew the prophesies of the OT concerning his coming Kingship over the Jews and Israel, I would know that Jesus did not come to fulfill all his Messianic promises to Israel concerning his kingdom in a gentile language while he was preaching to prepare his own people who were a nation in their own land and who had a national language called Hebrew, in which almost all their own OT was written.
The reasoning and logic that is presented by people of the book, so called, Baptists, who should be people who are not completely ignorant, should know better than that.
A prophesied by God Jewish King coming to prepare his people for inauguration of his Jewish kingdom while speaking Greek? The ignorance here is overwhelming! And a Greek translation out of Egypt. Good grief! How bad can it get?
John 18:37
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Your words here JD "And a Greek translation out of Egypt. Good grief! How bad can it get?"
Which Manuscript Stream Is Most Reliable?
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are categorized into three groups: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. Alexandria, Egypt, was an ancient center for academic excellence and scholarship.
Scholars view Alexandrian manuscripts as the best copied and most accurate. Western manuscripts come from a much wider area that extends from North Africa to France and east to Syria.
These manuscripts appear to have less oversight over the copying process when compared with Alexandrian manuscripts.
The third category is Byzantine, coming from Constantinople. While 80% of all existing Greek manuscripts are in this category (this is why the Byzantine manuscripts are called the Majority Text),
Byzantine manuscripts are considered the least accurate as there is evidence of expanding or smoothing out passages by copyists. The New Testament in the King James Version comes from this class of manuscripts.
Textus Receptus
In 1516, Dutch scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) published the first complete Greek New Testament,
Novem Instrumentum omne, a century later dubbed the
Textus Receptus, working mainly from Byzantine manuscripts. He used 12th and 13th century Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that were housed in various Catholic locations, such as a Franciscan monastery in Cambridge, England, and a library in Basel, Switzerland, plus some manuscripts since lost.
Erasmus himself noted that there were errors in his translation. No less than four times he edited his own work, in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. Tyndale’s English Bible (1526) and Luther’s German New Testament (1522) relied on earlier editions of Erasmus’ work.
French scholar Robert Estienne, known as Stephanus (1503-1559), edited Erasmus’ work four times, the last in 1551. This was followed by French theologian Theodore Beza (1519-1605) who updated the work nine times between 1565 and 1604. Beza was the successor of John Calvin as the leader of the influential Reformed community in Geneva.
The King James Translation
By the time the King James translators got to work on their new Bible version, the Textus Receptus had gone through over a dozen extensive edits and corrections. They relied on Beza’s work but not exclusively, nor did they always agree with it.
There are roughly 200 places in the New Testament where the King James translators parted ways with Beza’s rendering, instead relying on earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. They also relied on earlier English translations, the third edition of the Bishop’s Bible (1602) being the foundational English version from which they worked.
While the King James Version relied on manuscripts from the Majority Text (Byzantine) for its New Testament translation, modern Bible translations use a more eclectic approach, although they predominantly rely upon the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts. In fact, other Greek manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV translation.
It’s helpful to note, however, that there is 95-98% agreement between the Majority Text used by the KJV and modern critical Greek texts that might be used by other translations.
What Does This Mean For The KJV?
What can we conclude when comparing the King James Version’s New Testament with modern Bible translations? While the King James New Testament is composed from the majority of ancient Greek manuscripts, modern Bible translations use older yet not as many manuscripts; because they are older they are deemed closer to the original. As noted earlier, however, this does not take integrity from the KJV. Keep in mind our earlier statistics, and remember the correspondence between the KJV manuscripts and more modern translations is 95-98%. But do these differences make a difference?
Can I Trust The Bible?
This is what we have with the Bible. We know that over 99% of it accurately reflects the original writings, but in the less than 1% that remains (actually, it is about a quarter of one percent), we are not entirely sure because the manuscript evidence is mixed.
But we know where all these passages are, and none of them affects an important Christian doctrine or practice.
New Testament Manuscripts and the KJV
While you may not like the modern translations textual scholars would disagree with you.
