Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

I have also studied it, and I have also seen your article. Yes, they often provide textual support for specific readings in favor of the TR, but the fact still remains that the Old Latin does not match the KJV perfectly. And Old Latin manuscripts often don't even agree amongst themselves.

For example, all extant Old Latin manuscripts read "Isaiah" in Mark 1:2, which is a "modern version" reading.

Kutilek (yes, I know you don't like him) lists many other examples at his discussion of the Old Latin and Waldensian Bible at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/waldensian.htm. Another interesting article is at http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/accuracy_of_info.htm.

Does the Old Latin *usually* support the TR over the critical text? Maybe. Does it match the KJV perfectly, and thus shows "a perfect preservation" between the Old Latin and the KJV? Absolutely not.

Sheesh, we just proved this to you last month ( http://www.baptistboard.com/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-4-t-001191.html ) Have you forgotten already?

 

Will Kinney:
"You have no way of proving what those hundreds and thousands of other O.L. mss. said or did not say, but the very definite implications are that the KJB readings existed long before Vaticanus omitted them."

While YOU have no way of proving it, either.

"God said He would preserve His words. Not "out there somewhere" mixed up with a bunch of contradictory and spurious readings as we see particularly today in such versions as the ESV, NASB, NIV."

How do you KNOW which ones are spurious? And what about the contradictory readings in the KJV?

"For me and other KJB believers, we do not even need to rely on manuscript evidence to prove our point."

You're afraid of what you might find that shoots down the KJVO myth.


"We simply see the blatant errors found in the new versions and know from these that they are not God's pure words."

Will Kinney

You don't KNOW, Will-you simply SAY they're errors and hope somebody might actually believe it.

As we've asked several times-Where's your AUTHORITY for KJVO? Is KJVO of God, or man?

 

The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. When the Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "easter" was changed to "passover</font>[/QUOTE]Whittingham's Bible (New Testament only) came out in 1557. The Geneva Bible proper (which was largely, though not completely based on Whittingham's work) came out in 1560.

 

No, I'm not missing the obvious. I just don't think that you can use lack of evidence as evidence. The Old Latin agreed exactly with the KJV because most of the Old Latin no longer exists? Please. I could say the Old Latin agrees 100% with the NIV, but was used so much that it was worn out and lost, and the few mss that still exist only exist because they were corrupt and didn't get used and thus didn't wear out. Yes, evidence by lack of evidence is very convincing indeed.

Um, what? Try looking up the dates of the extant Old Latin manuscripts. They range from the 4th (only 2 mss, I think) to 13th centuries, with the average around the 7th.

Lovely, thanks.

AGAIN (how many times?) you tell me what I do and do not believe, and AGAIN you royally mess it up.

"Strong support" does not equal "perfect match". That's my point. So what if we only have one-one-hundredth? What if the other 99-and-99-one-hundredths DON'T match the KJV perfectly? Yes, you are correct, I don't have those other ones, but guess what: neither do you! You can't base an argument on invisible, hypothetical manuscripts.

How many words are different if you compare the KJV to the Geneva, or the Great Bible? Do you know? Do you care?

 

What's that? </font>[/QUOTE]Evidently, Will associates our non-belief in the KJVO myth with the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel(1770-1831), one of the "fathers" of Hitler's idealogy. He does this in an attempt to lead us away from the lack of evidence supporting the KJVO myth.

Wanna know more about Hegel? Read Wm. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and/or this link:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

This has nothing to do with the KJVO myth, of course, except in Will's imagination.

 

At least Will is willing to read some "scholarly" books and interact based on them!!

 

Your guilt is demonstrated by your own example. Not only do you have much less than half the evidence, you have further narrowed the evidence by ignoring everything that does not support your pre-determined conclusion.

Where did God promise to preserve His words in the KJV? If you would rather "take the word of God" then please cite the scripture that says God would only preserve His Word in one English translation that happens not to be a preservation of any text form that preceded it. In other words, the KJV was a unique creation in 1611. Therefore, it cannot be the preservation of the words of God. It can be and is the preservation of His Word... but never His words.

The "scant" evidence that remains when viewed without bias not only does not prove KJVOnlyism, it disproves it.

 

Will Kinney:
Brian, you are missing the obvious. You only have a very small sampling of what the Old Latin manuscripts read. Exceedingly small. Yet you base your whole theory that the pure words of God never existed without corruption in hundreds if not thousands of Old Latin bibles, solely on the scant evidence that remains today.

Will, how do you reconcile your statement about what you think Brian believes with this statement about what YOU say you believe in your same post?

"I would rather take the word of God as it stands today in the KJB where God promised to preserve His words and believe it, even though I cannot "prove" it by the scant evidence that remains."

YOUR evidence is FAR more "SCANTY" than Brian's is. And WHERE has God promised to preserve His words in the KJV?

Your bias shows in this statement "Does the Old Latin *usually* support the TR over the critical text? Maybe."

You see, you are so determined to refuse to believe that God has actually done what He said He would do ( preserve His inspired words) that even faced with just a small part of evidence that shows strong support for the KJB readings, you strain at gnats and point out little places where the O.L. texts differ among themselves, even though you only have maybe one- one hundreth of the evidence to deal with.

I'm sure Brian will answer for himself, but from what I've seen from him over the years, it appears he believes God has preserved His words MUCH MORE SO than does any KJVO. And so do I. The evidence is plain. God first gave His words to men who wrote them down in their own languages. His words were understandable to these men, however He presented them, by telepathy, audible speech or however else He chose. Did God not want His words translated into other languages? Let Scripture itself answer in Acts 2. I'm sure that more than one of those men who heard God's words through Peter & the other apostles in their own tongues soon wrote them down in their own languages to read to their neighbors when they returned to their homes. God knows that no one language won't translate 100% exactly into any other, but He caused His words to appear in various languages AS HE CHOSE, in forms understandable to those who read each of those languages. And he still does that right now.

I would rather take the word of God as it stands today in the KJB where God promised to preserve His words and believe it, even though I cannot "prove" it by the scant evidence that remains. And even the evidence that we do have, generally and overwhelmingly points to the KJB readings as opposed to the Westcott-Hort texts used in most modern versions.

Yes, you use scanty evidence against the MOUNTAIN of contrary evidence. The TR and the "MT"s agrees with your dreaded "W-H texts" in MOST of its readings-FAR more often than they DISagree.

Brian, there is no "maybe" about it. There is very strong and compelling evidence even from what little we still have of the O.L. to show support for most of the critical portions found in the KJB readings as opposed to those omitted by the RSV, NIV, NASV, ESV. And these readings of whole verses existed at least 150 years before anything we have in the Greek copies.

Yerp, we see your logic, as you're trying to get us to believe it. Let's pretend that you have a complete copy of "Macbeth", and you have a page from some unknown English book that has the one sentence, "out,out, damned spot!" Therefore you assume & tell everyone that the whole book, if it still exists, is a copy of Macbeth because that sentence is found in your pristine copy of Macbeth.

However, someone finds the rest of the book & proves your page is from it, by spectrographic analysis, and your page is actually quoting a woman shooing her dog from her freshly-mopped floor, with the whole book written in lower-case, explaining why "Spot" wasn't capitalized. You see, you've bet on the unknown and lost. And you say Brian's evidence is scanty???? What it is, you strain at your perceived gnat in Brian's evidence while ignorang the CAMEL-or should I say, CARAVAN-of GOD'S evidence! Every devout Baptist, KJVO or not, believes God has preserved AND PRESENTED His words on this planet ever since He first gave them to any man. There have been different versions of His words in every major language that's had God's words in it for the last several hundred years; that's totally undeniable. This is GOD'S EVIDENCE for us that He presents His words AS HE CHOOSES, regardless of any man-made theories of how He SHOULD have done it in their opinions. This evidence is plain as the sun, and no one can deny its existence or place any other "spin" upon that this evidence indicates-THAT GOD HAS PRESENTED HIS WORD IN ENGLISH IN MULTIPLE VERSIONS.

You see, by believing a false, man-made myth, you've put yourself behind a theological 8-ball. You believe, like other Baptists, that God has preserved His word and presented it continually, to all generations of every language, from the time He first presented it in any given language. This includes English, of course. But yet you say the KJV is the ONLY valid translation of God's word in English, even though it's far from the FIRST English version. Since no two English versions are alike, that means you don't believe the translations preceeding the KJV are valid, as they're all different from the KJV-BUT YET YOU BELIEVE GOD HAS PRESENTED HIS WORDS IN ENGLISH UNTO ALL GENERATIONS AFTER HE ALLOWED THE FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE MADE!!! It can only be one or the other-Either God has NOT preserved His word, or He HAS preserved/presented His word AS HE CHOSE. The PROOF for that preservation is His PRESENTATIONS of it; otherwise how would we know He DID preserve it? GOD'S evidence AGAINST the KJVO myth is plain as the ground underneath your feet.

Once again-BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe KJVO? Is KJVO of God or man? If you say, "of God", can you *PROVE* it???

 

My, my, my...........Robycopy, you are pontificating so profusely and elaborately here. Can you PROVE that you exist? Can you PROVE that this board exists. All this may simply be the hallucination of a babbling idiot incarcerated in some insane asylum. What you mean by PROVE? PROVE is only a word variously defined by variable philosophers or wannabe philosophers. After all, your whole conceptual world is contained in the fallible senses and ratiocination of a depraved, fallen human being. So, what do we KNOW? What can we PROVE! Perhaps we all should drink a little more water of humility at the spring of wisdom. So you have an opinion? There are about 6 billion people on planet earth and they all have many opinions. What's one opinion more or less? BTW, bluster most certainly doesn't PROVE! Bye.

 

Paidycake- the burden of proof for the Man made KJVO myth is on you all. Can you prove George Washington existed? Can you prove that you have a brain (since we've never actually seen it)? Empirical Evidence. Hey, Roby is right.

 

Paidycake- the burden of proof for the Man made KJVO myth is on you all. Can you prove George Washington existed? Can you prove that you have a brain (since we've never actually seen it)? Empirical Evidence. Hey, Roby is right. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Oreo. Well, you may think Robycopy is right but it sure doesn't prove anything. You are right to a degree about proof. In fact, you actually supported my argument. Thanks. However, the burden of proof is not on my position. First of all, I don’t indulge in the arguments of the nut cases (Ruckman, et. al.). However, modern critical text theory is bankrupt. Whereas one cannot necessarily prove a positive, I can eliminate the alternatives by proving them wrong. That is exactly my argument. W-H textual theory is wrong. I do not necessarily accept the majority text position, so we are left with the received (accepted) traditional text. It really doesn’t bother me that there are some places that need corrections. Now, if you’re smart, it will occur to you that you and Robycopy are using all the wrong arguments on me. They’re totally irrelevant. You have to establish the superiority of modern textual theory. Define it any way that you want but you must defend it from the ground up beginning with your basic assumptions. Now, state your assumptions and have at it. BTW, you can’t take a leap of faith beyond the assumptions and start at comparing manuscripts. Have fun since you guys love this proof business.

 

Hey, I like that, "Oreo" they taste nice! Black on the outside and white on the inside, kinda like___________. Usually I am called "Popcorn Man" ya know Orville Redenbacher, or however ya spell the name