Why We Use The KJV

[TCassidy]

Ok then, Doctor Cassidy, would you accept the statement, "None of them (First Century Churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures."

I appreciate your corrections.

None of the 1st century churches had a complete copy of the NT as it was not completed until the last few years of the 1st century. However, the 2nd century churches certainly had all the books of the NT, although probably not bound together into one volume as our bibles today. Remember, the farthest out posts of Christendom, north Africa, had copies that, over the following century became the Alexandrian textform, which includes all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Winman]

If John's Apocalypse was not written until about 90AD then it would near impossible for any 1st century churches to have a complete canonical New Testament; considering the 'technology' available for publishing and distribution at the time it would have been a tremendous feat to construct even a few complete NTs before 200AD (and with periods of persecution these Christian activities could not be executed in the open). Surviving documents do not testify to complete NTs before 4th century, I think.

I agree, it would be difficult for 1st century churches, hey, the 1st century covers from 1 A.D. to 100 A.D., you could argue none of the churches had any of the New Testament scriptures whatsoever!

But how you come up with 200 A.D. is beyond me, it is pure speculation on your part. I imagine that most churches had those earlier writings by Paul, Peter and others in the last years of the 1st century, and that soon after John penned Revelation it was copied and distributed among the existing churches.

I seriously doubt it took 100 years for at least some of the churches to have the complete NT as you speculate.

 

[Mexdeaf]

None of the 1st century churches had a complete copy of the NT as it was not completed until the last few years of the 1st century. However, the 2nd century churches certainly had all the books of the NT, although probably not bound together into one volume as our bibles today. Remember, the farthest out posts of Christendom, north Africa, had copies that, over the following century became the Alexandrian textform, which includes all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

Thanks, that's what I thought. So the church that said,

We believe the King James Version is the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God. We believe the same scriptures that the 1st century churches possessed are the same scriptures we have today. This is one of the most important messages that will be given in this church.

was wrong.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree with the statement. The scriptures we have today and the scriptures the early churches had, are the same scriptures. Passed down through almost 2000 years and translated into 1000s of languages, but the same scriptures.

The only way that could not be true is if the early churches used a different bible from the one we use.

 

[Trotter]

I seriously doubt it took 100 years for at least some of the churches to have the complete NT as you speculate.

Then you need to go study up on how things worked in those days. There was no mass transit, no rapid transit, no faxes, no internet, no newspapers, no telephones, nothing. It took a lot of time for these letters/books to be spread. They couldn't just run off a few dozen copies and drop it in the mail.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The only way that could not be true is if the early churches used a different bible from the one we use.

Fact is they did.

 

[dwmoeller1]

300 out of 1800 is hardly "the whole." And, of course, that has nothing at all to do with my point. I will dumb it down for you if you so require.

1. "Represents the whole" rarely means "every single one attended". Not every single one need attend if the ones who did are composed of a representative sample. There was no significant portion of orthodox Christianity which was not represented at Nicea. Unlike Trent where an extremely significant minority were totally unrepresented. The two aren't comparable.

2. Please do dumb it down for me.

 

[TCassidy]

There was no significant portion of orthodox Christianity which was not represented at Nicea.

2. Please do dumb it down for me.

Was Montanus and his followers represented? How about Novatian and his followers? What about Tertulian and his followers?

Your knowledge of history seems to be more than slightly lacking.

 

[TCassidy]

Fact is they did.

So you don't think the early churches used the orthodox canon? What books do you think they added to the orthodox canon or what books do you think they denied were canonical that we accept today?

 

[Winman]

Then you need to go study up on how things worked in those days. There was no mass transit, no rapid transit, no faxes, no internet, no newspapers, no telephones, nothing. It took a lot of time for these letters/books to be spread. They couldn't just run off a few dozen copies and drop it in the mail.

And folks weren't cavemen either. Have you ever seen maps of Paul's missionary trips? According to Christian History magazine, he travelled over 14,000 miles.

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Here is an example of Paul commanding the Colossians to take this epistle to the Laodiceans. It is safe to assume this was a common practice. It is probable many precise copies were made and distributed among the churches as quickly as possible.

So yes, travel was difficult back then, but men were able to travel many thousands of miles just as they are today.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Was Montanus and his followers represented? How about Novatian and his followers? What about Tertulian and his followers?

Your knowledge of history seems to be more than slightly lacking.

Very likely. But now I am motivated to research more

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I imagine that most churches had those earlier writings by Paul, Peter and others in the last years of the 1st century, and that soon after John penned Revelation it was copied and distributed among the existing churches. ...

Actually, Revelation (and some other canonical books like 2 Peter, for example) remained OUT of many gatherings of Greek scriptures for decades. It only takes one missing book to make a collection "incomplete".

I seriously doubt it took 100 years for at least some of the churches to have the complete NT as you speculate.

You may doubt and you may imagine, but this a subject I have read extensively. Again, I think you underestimate the affects of persecution during the first few centuries; in fact, many scriptures were destroyed during this period (and perhaps to somewhat protect canonical books from confiscation they may have been intentionally kept separated for better concealment). Cost and literacy were also factors.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Here is an example of Paul commanding the Colossians to take this epistle to the Laodiceans. It is safe to assume this was a common practice. It is probable many precise copies were made and distributed among the churches as quickly as possible. ...

And where are your precise copies of that Laodicean epistle today?

 

[Winman]

And where are your precise copies of that Laodicean epistle today?

That is a good question, and you are not the first to voice it. I would answer that Paul is not necessarily saying there is a Book of the Laodiceans for want of a name, but only telling them to read an epistle they received "from" Laodicea.

Matthew Henry commented this:

IX. The brethren in Laodicea are here mentioned, as living in the neighbourhood of Colosse: and Paul sends salutations to them, and orders that this epistle should be read in the church of the Laodiceans (v. 16), that a copy of it should be sent thither, to be read publicly in their congregation. And some think Paul sent another epistle at this time to Laodicea, and ordered them to send for that from Laodicea, and read it in their church: And that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. If so, that epistle is now lost, and did not belong to the canon; for all the epistles which the apostles ever wrote were not preserved, any more than the words and actions of our blessed Lord. There are many other things which Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books which would be written, Jn. 21:25. But some think it was the epistle to the Ephesians, which is still extant.

If you ever wonder why I quote from Matthew Henry, it is because it is the only commentary I have ever owned, I received as a gift many years ago. I don't know what happened to it, I haven't seen it in over 20 years. But I am familiar with his writings and probably consult it more than any other.

I agree with Henry, if this epistle were canon it would not have been lost, as I believe God's promise to preserve scripture. Henry also notes that some scholars believe this was the book of Ephesians.

That is the best answer I can give.

 

[Winman]

Actually, Revelation (and some other canonical books like 2 Peter, for example) remained OUT of many gatherings of Greek scriptures for decades. It only takes one missing book to make a collection "incomplete".

You may doubt and you may imagine, but this a subject I have read extensively. Again, I think you underestimate the affects of persecution during the first few centuries; in fact, many scriptures were destroyed during this period (and perhaps to somewhat protect canonical books from confiscation they may have been intentionally kept separated for better concealment). Cost and literacy were also factors.

Oh, I am sure that some churches did not have all the NT books for some time.

But I disagree that it would have taken a hundred years or more for all the books to get around to the churches. Yes, travel and communication were much slower back then, but they did an amazing job of getting around quickly. They had couriers, they had ships.

But you know what, this is all speculation on your part and mine. There is no way to go back in time and know exactly which churches had which texts. And I am sure it might have changed at times, one church may have loaned a text to another for a period of time.

So, your arguments are just as speculative as mine. You do not have any proof of your assertions any better than I do.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Was Montanus and his followers represented? How about Novatian and his followers? What about Tertulian and his followers?

Your knowledge of history seems to be more than slightly lacking.

I can't find any suggestion that Tertullian's followers weren't represented at Nicea. In fact, many attribute one of the main ideas decided at Nicea to have been first promulgated by Tertullian - the doctrine of the Trinity. Maybe you can refer me to a source which suggest he was excluded?

Yes to Novatian's followers.

Montanus' teachings were condemned by the bishops of Asia Minor early on. Thus he doesn't represent orthodox Christianity. That his teachings stuck around for a while doesn't change this. It would have been strange for his followers to be represented at any council considering they had already been condemned. Besides, his own failed prophecies would have made his teachings invalid.

So, so far, it doesn't appear that these represent counter-examples to my claim about the council. Any other examples?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Oh, I am sure that some churches did not have all the NT books for some time. ...

Well, in light of historical facts that is an extraordinarily safe statement.

But I disagree that it would have taken a hundred years or more for all the books to get around to the churches. ...

I don't know who you think you are disagreeing with, since I never said that. The issue under discussion was essentially: When did complete canonical NT codices come into existence? There is NO evidence that I know of that could reasonably tend to support any complete NT before 200AD. There are many facts that would indicate that complete NT codices not exist until much later (possibly mid-4th century).

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't know who you think you are disagreeing with, since I never said that. The issue under discussion was essentially: When did complete canonical NT codices come into existence? There is NO evidence that I know of that could reasonably tend to support any complete NT before 200AD. There are many facts that would indicate that complete NT codices not exist until much later (possibly mid-4th century).

He is probably disagreeing with me, since I made the statement that:

None of them (First Century churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures.

 

[Rippon]

Matthew Henry commented this:

I quote from Matthew Henry,

I agree with Henry,

As I have pointed out several times before,Matthew Henry completed Acts and died. Other men did the remaining commentaries for the rest of the New Testament. Yet the whole thing --OT and NT is called Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Bible.

 

[RAdam]

He is probably disagreeing with me, since I made the statement that:

None of them (First Century churches) possessed a complete copy of the New Testament Scriptures.

It's nice to know that people not only claim to know what was in the original copies of scripture though they have never seen them, but also claim to know that the NT churches didn't have the complete NT in the first century.