Featured Missing Verses

NOT in the sense that the KJVO supporters would claim it to be! the "missing verses" would be thosr that were not attested to by the earliest manuscripts of the Bible books...

Now, one can question IF those were necessarily the best ones to use, but cannot use it as a "proof' that MV are somehow corrupted, not word of god, satanic inspired etc!

 

"Exclude" is a term of comparison. So the question is: are verses 'excluded' as compared to _____ ? (a standard is required in the blank)

 

And were the 'excluded" verses actually even in the original documents?

 

some holding to KJVO have stated that if there are ANY differences/corrections tobe made between the Greek/hebrew texts and the KJV, the KJV corrects those mistakes!

 

The answer to your question is actually revealed in the original link that started this thread.

Time is short this morning, as I have to leave shortly to go to church.

In a probably too brief nutshell, it's all about two lines of thought on sources for the scriptures. Two lines that can be traced back to 1881, as the OP link indicates. The line that, in effect ended with the AV, vs the line rooted in critical thinking of 1881.

For the most part (qualifier!) the war of Bibles is based on behind which line warriors are encamped.

 

No actual need for the war, for since we don't have the original documents, BOTH camps can and should claim their versions as being the word of god to us in English today!

 

The two lines argument does not hold up if compared to the actual facts. There are actually many textual and translational differences in the Bibles that KJV-only advocates place in their good or pure line or stream of Bibles.

Perhaps you are uninformed about the actual textual variations in the Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based, some of which involve whole verses.

There are later English Bibles that are based on the same original language texts as the KJV such as the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2000 King James 2000 Version. The 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster and the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists could also be mentioned. The assertion that the one claimed line supposedly ended with the KJV is false.

 

Peshitta on the good line

KJV-only advocates put the Peshitta Syriac Bible on their good line of Bibles, and yet it differs far more textually from the KJV than any supposed differences that are claimed to be in the NKJV.

Ruckman's good tree included the Peshitta Syriac Bible, which did not include the book of Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and John 7:53-8:11. Mickey Carter also placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112). Carter wrote: "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110). William Bradley wrote: "The Peshitta was the Bible of the early church translated from the original autographs into Syrian" (To All Generations, p. 5). Edward F. Hills placed the Peshitta Syriac on the line of manuscripts and translations leading up to the KJV (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20). Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta (KJV on Trial, p. 16). William Grady claimed: "The Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible" (Final Authority, p. 34). Grady also claimed that “the Holy Spirit would also have breathed life into the many powerful ancient translations, such as the Peshitta” (Given By Inspiration, p. 103). Thomas Strouse asserted that “the TR is represented by the 2nd century Syriac Peshitta” (The Lord God, p. 18). D. A. Waite affirmed that the Peshitta Syriac Version “was based on the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 46). Douglas Stauffer also maintained that the Peshitta "closely agrees with the Traditional Text of the King James Bible" (One Book, p. 307). Jack Chick listed the Peshitta as one of the Bibles that were “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8). Gail Riplinger asserted that the Peshitta Syriac “agree with the KJV” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 488).

Ruckman contended that the Peshitta "contained the O. T. as it stands in the A.V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 79). Bradley also claimed: "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52). Bradley also contended that the existing Peshitta manuscripts give “us a direct link from the King James Bible to the very handwritten documents of Paul, Peter, James, John and the rest” (p. 6).

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Hall pointed out that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)“ (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

The Peshitta has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek was omitted from some manuscripts at John 6:11 and this mistake can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible has Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, the Lamsa Bible and Murdock's New Testament have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation of the Syriac has "the only begotten God." Murdock's and Lamsa have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2. Murdock's and Lamsa have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." They have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock’s and Lamsa have “elders.“ These two translations end 1 Corinthians 11:20 with “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper.“ Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.“ At John 1:28, Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.“ Lamsa has “a Jew” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.“ Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa has “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.“

 

A Few Questions For Logos...

Bro. Logos...since you would seem to be our Baptist Board on-line "encyclopedia" about this kind of stuff I have a question for you. With the exception of the NKJV, which has been widely publicized and promoted, why have these other modern "KJV" revisions drawn so little attention? I don't think I have ever seen ANY of them in the bookstores I have been in or even on-line. I was aware of several of them because I have seen passing references to them....but never in actual print...why? I might NOT have a personal problem with an HONEST revision of the KJV into a (non-archaic) style if it was based STRICTLY on the TR and stayed STRICTLY "on-task" to updating the older words that aren't used frequently in our day. I think I would leave the Thee's and Thou's in it if it were me just because I think the use of the older personal pronouns is far more accurate than the modern equivalents such as "You and Yours,etc."(my opinion). BUT....I don't think I would or could ever surrender my KJV as my Biblical "base of operations" in this spiritual war we are in. There is nothing like an old,reliable,familiar weapon!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

The NKJV was an honest revision of the KJV and translation of the same original language texts as the KJV.

The King James 2000 Version, a revision of the KJV by Robert A. Couric, is distributed by The Bible League [16801 Van Dam Road, South Holland, IL
60473]. It is said to be distributed and used in several countries in Africa.

The 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster was reprinted in 1987 by Baker Book House. I think that its text is also available online.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and other believers was printed for at least a few years. I have a copy of a second edition printed in 1842 in Philadelphia. I once saw a later 1847 edition of it that had "Baptist Bible" on its binding. It perhaps gave way to the 1866 American Bible Union Version.

 

What about the version done by Jay Green Sr?

And would yo agree that there is little to no schorship involving those holding to KJVO IF based upon the TR, but would be at least a decent amount on those advocating superiority of the MT/BZT over the CT?
I would still hold the CT as better, but at least they have reputable scholarship!

 

Thanks

Logos....thanks for the information...it is helpful. I will mention that I'm not quite sure I agree with you regarding the NKJV. After reading some of Dr. Stauffer's comparitive analysis on it and the NIV (and I recognise there are BIG differences between the two...so does he...he was just dealing with the ones he considered to be more widely used and read) I'm not sure that they didn't quietly refer to the CT to come up with some of the renderings they did in the NKJV.
Anyway...thanks...I would like to get a look at some of those other revisions to see how they handled things....just out of curiousity.
On another note...HOW IN THIS WORLD do you keep track of all this stuff? Are you retired...or a professional student or something? Would you care to elaborate on your "credentials" and vocation? I'm currently unemployed and I can't even "scratch the surface" on retaining what I need to know.....you actually rather amaze me. I just wish some of your conclusions were different. "Things that are different are not the same". I guess heaven will tell which one(s) of us are right or wrong. We may never agree here.

Bro.Greg:saint:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

No,you're wrong. Griesback,back in the late 18th and early 19 century had a Greek New Testament based largely on what is like the CT of today. There were others as well.

Most of the New Testament in English in 1857 by Moberly,Alford and Humphry was not based on the RT,but very similar to the Critical Text.

 

you mean that the "devil" was at work attacking the TR before W & H?
(written as a KJVO would!)

And was tischendorf greek text in comparison to Tr/Ct?

 

Nkjv

Doug Stauffer may jump to faulty or wrong conclusions based on incomplete information, faulty assumptions, or his subjective KJV-only bias. I have not seen any sound convincing proof from any KJV-only author that proves that the NKJV translators made use of the Critical Text in their translating.

The NKJV translators would have made use of some of the same Hebrew-English lexicons and Greek-English lexicons that the translators of the other modern English versions used. That could explain the finding of any same renderings of original language words in the NKJV compared to some other modern English version.

The KJV translators did not have available any Hebrew-English lexicons or any Hebrew-Greek lexicons since none had yet been made. The KJV translators had available Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, and some of those lexicons had as the Latin definition of the original language words the rendering in the Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators made use of multiple sources including several sources that differed textually from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. Influence of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate have been seen in some of the renderings in the KJV. For example, the KJV's rendering "pygarg" (Deut. 14:5) may come from the Greek LXX's rendering "pygargos" or the Latin Vulgate's rendering "pygargus."

While it has not been proven, if the NKJV translators supposedly consulted a modern version to see which English word that they choose to translate an original language word, how would that be differ from what the KJV translators did? The KJV translators consulted the 1582 Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate, considered which English words were used in it, and borrowed several English renderings from it.

Attacking the NKJV translators for supposedly doing a similar thing to what the KJV translators are known to have done would suggest use of double standards or divers measures. Why should it be acceptable for the KJV translators to consult and make use of textually different sources in their translating if it would be supposedly wrong for other translators to do the same thing? Would it be considered fair and proper to attack the honesty of the KJV translators because they consulted textually different sources and because they borrowed English renderings from a English translation [the Rheims] that is not based on the Textus Receptus?

I have done some comparing of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV. I have compiled so far 50 pages of examples where the rendering of the NKJV is exactly the same or is very similar to that in the earlier 1560 Geneva Bible while the KJV's rendering is more different. Some of these examples may even involve cases where KJV-only authors have incorrectly claimed that the source of the NKJV's rendering had to be some modern translation such as the RSV or NIV.

 

Could it be that the KJV translators IF having access to same tools as the NKJV team would have 'amended" the KJV to reflect better renderings in some areas?

And why isn't the geneva bible seen as being same as KJV by KJVO, isn'y it based off same 'family tree?"

 

Because then they couldn't be KJV only! :laugh: