Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

You just can't do it can you? Can't take a stand. Trying to ride the fence.

You know, you folks that support (but actually you don't) the MVs come on here and call fellows like me and Stilllearning and a few others heretics and idolators, and not a single one of you has the courage to stand up for what you claim you believe.

Take a stand. The TR and the CT cannot both be the word of God, it is impossible and you know it. Hey, if you have to, put the names of all the versions on slips of paper and put them in a hat. Draw one out and go with that.

But take a stand.

 

Likewise, you should also.

Which KJV is the 100% word of God? The 1611? The 1769? The 1823? Which one?

"Things that are different are not the same."

No fence-riding, now...

 

Do you think that old false argument is fooling anyone here? Not even the folks who believe in the MVs are fooled by that. The changes in the KJB are well documented. The vast majority were simply spelling changes as English spelling was standardized over the years. Typographical errors were weeded out. They went from the Gothic to Roman style print.

The KJB today is almost exactly identical to the version that came out in 1611, and anybody who knows even a little on this subject knows that.

Try coming up with a real argument sometime instead of parroting what someone who did not know what they were talking about said.

 

"What men have put to paper" = English translations of God's word. I guess I should have explained my comment?

I can know God through what many different men at different times have translated. I can know God through the witness of others. I can know God by actually studying the original languages He used to record His word.

God's word is preserved by God, not man. Trying to use that old saw as some kind of "proof" that the KJV is God's one and only won't fly here. God did just fine preserving His word before 1611, and He can do just fine without the man-made blasphemy of KJVO. He doesn't need anyone to hold His hand or tell Him how to do it.

I have taken a stand, but it is not a choice that you offered or desired. I don't have to point to a single translation and try to tell God that this is the only true version of His word. I don't worship a man-made Nehushtan, nor do I bow to a man-made doctrine. I bow before God and God alone, and I respect His word as found in both the original languages as well as a host of various translations in a multitude of different languages.

Are all of these translations identical? Praise God, no! If they were most everyone else would be left out as only those who read and understood that particular language of the one translation would be able to use it.

Each and every translation becomes frozen the moment it is finished, as soon as the ink is put to paper. It ceases to develop and is now static. Even when a translation is revised (such as your Nehushtan) it is still static as there are only a few changes made, and even they are frozen when finished. But time moves on, languages change. The language of the KJV is from over 400 years ago as the KJV used more "higher" language than that of the common people. Much has changed since then in the way of the English language. We here in the US are on a different continent and have evolved our language slightly different than the UK, but even the UK do not speak as the KJV is written. This is but one reason for new translations.

stilllearning, Askjo, and Winman, you all go ahead and cling to your man-made Nehushtan. I, along with most here, will choose to follow after God.

 

That scribes tended to add rather than omit depends on whom you ask. James Royse wrote a whole dissertation, much of which is spent demonstrating the opposite of your claim; it is called Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Also, can you tell me how much longer and fuller the 15th-century Byzantine text is from the 5th-century Byzantine text? According to your claim, a millennium of copying should have produced a texttype chock full of superfluous additions. The fact is, however, that the Byzantine text from the 15th century is hardly different than the one from the 5th century. From this it is not too far a stretch to postulate that the common text from the 5th century is any different from the common one from which there is no evidence available: of course I speak of the one from the 1st century.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Slightly? American and English are two different languages. I have learned that the hard way after far too many embarrassments

 

And when it comes right down to it, so do you.

 

So, God can preserve His word only in the KJV...but not well enough to fend of spelling errors?

"Almost identical?" Well now...that's less than 100%. And as you people are fond of saying, "Which one is 100% the word of God?" Your KJVO view just fell apart, by your own admission.

I'll leave this argument alone when you manage to fashion a cogent response to it. And remember...you KJVO's practically invented "parroting." Ruckman, Riplinger, et al, anyone?

 

You and others just cannot get it. The very fact that spelling or other typographical errors can be spotted and corrected is because a perfect and infallible standard exists.

In 1611, printing was very primitive. It probably took months to print the original KJB. Then these bibles went out to the people. Over time, people spotted mistakes. They were reported back to the publishers. So, they corrected this mistake and sent out new bibles. In the meantime, new typographical or spelling errors were spotted. So, once again they had to make corrections and send out new bibles.

It was not like today where these corrections can be made in seconds. It took many years to even be informed of all the mistakes, then it took time to make corrections and send out corrected bibles.

And that was not the only issue. Spelling was changing. Sometimes there were several different spellings for the same word (color- colour). In time, spelling itself was standardized. Now, all the old KJBs may have had words where the spelling was incorrect. It was really not an error at all, it was just that a different spelling was accepted as a standard.

There were some textual changes made, but almost all of these were also obvious typographical errors. A word here or there may have mistakingly been left out or added. But, because there was a infallible standard, these errors were also spotted and corrected.

The type style is simply a change from Gothic to Roman. There is not change here at all. You could copy some scripture and paste it in MS Word and change the font. Does that change God's Word? Of course not.

And these are the changes that were made in the KJB over the years. It is almost exactly identical to the first edition in 1611. It is not exactly identical because we now use a new type style, some spellings are different (because what was was accepted as a standard spelling changed later), and some textual changes due to obvious typographical errors were corrected.

Once again, a mistake by man does not mean that God's word has not been preserved. Because there was an infallible standard, these mistakes were spotted and corrected. You just can't grasp this can you.

Our whole manufacturing process relies on this very method. When Toyota makes a door for the Corolla in Tennessee, it has to fit the frame of the car made in Saginaw. How can they do that? They can do that because they are all using very precise standards. Their measurements are almost exactly the same. So, when they get the door from Tennessee, it fits perfectly in the frame made in Michigan.

It is foolish to have to explain this to people. If you don't understand this I can't help you.

I work in Inspection. We measure down to a millionth of an inch. That is incredibly small. How can we do that? We have standards. When we suspect a standard is damaged or has changed from wear and tear, we send it out to laboratories who compare our standards to even more precise standards. If the standard is correct, they certify it and send it back. If the standard has been damaged or is out of spec, we have to replace it.

And these labs have to send out their standards to companies that have even more precise standards. And the so-called "perfect standards" are kept in Washington, D.C..

This is how our whole manufacturing process in this country (and the world) operates. Everything is compared to these perfect and infallible standards.

And this is why the KJB went through many changes. Errors that departed from the original infallible translation were spotted and corrected. The true Word of God existed and still does.

I am not a Ruckmanite, and I really don't know anything about Riplinger except a few things I've read. I am not nearly as extreme as them, I do not believe the English corrects the Greek for example. I do not believe in double inspiration.

But I tell you what, I respect them more than folks that support the MVs. At least they make a stand, they stand up for what they believe. I can respect that.

But ask any of you MV folks which version is the pure and preserved Word of God and none of you will commit to ANY version. You give the ridiculous answer that they are ALL the Word of God.

Now how can the CT and TR texts both be the word of God? The CT has nearly 3000 less words (in the original Greek) than the TR. Either the CT diminished God's Word, or the TR added to God's Word. Revelations 22:18-19 says that if we add or diminish God's Word he will take our name out of the Book of Life, and add to us the plagues shown in the scriptures. This is serious stuff.

Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Do you see what God told Jeremiah? He said "diminish not a word". God does not tolerate 95% accuracy, he demands 100%.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, read those verses and ask yourself this question. How in the world can any man know if he is adding or taking away from God's word unless it is possible to know the exact and perfect word of God?

You can't. If you do not know God's exact words, then there is no possible way to know if someone has added or subtracted to that.

If you want to argue that the KJB is not the preserved and perfect word of God, well, that is something you can argue about and make a case for. But you can't argue that all the versions are the Word of God, because they are all very different from each other.

So, if you don't believe the KJB is the true word of God, then which version is? If you don't believe the TR is the true word of God, then where is it? Is it only in the CT? If it is, then take a stand and proclaim it to the world. This is a life and death matter.

 

What you do with Jesus is a life or death matter. No Bible version died for you on the cross.

 

So, Winman, after 400 years there must surely be an absolutely perfectly perfect copy of the KJT with no mistakes of any kind. No typos, no spelling errors, no punctuation errors.

Where is that edition of the KJT? Or are you happy enough with a mostly perfect translation?

 

Winman has it. It's on the shelf, next to his car keys.

 

You are correct here, I shouldn't say you can't get it, I should have properly said you WILL NOT get it.

I am not a scholar, so I do not know exactly which texts the KJB translators used. People say they used the TR, but that is a general statement, because we know they deviated some from this text. The problem is, the texts they used were destroyed.

Now, you may disagree here, but I believe that happened for a reason. We are to believe God by faith, not scholarship.

Another thing I have said repeatedly to you and others and you WILL NOT get, is that I simply believe what God said. I believe him when he said he would preserve his pure (without corruption or error) word.

I cannot explain how God preserved his word, and I really don't worry about it, I simply believe it. Yes, the KJB translators did not claim to be holy prophets. They were simply sincere, humble men who did the very best they could to accurately translate the Greek and Aramaic texts they had. There is no way they would claim that they were inspired like the prophets.

But I believe that God was directing them. I believe God was directing the men who came before them and were willing to give their lives to publish the scriptures in the language of the common people so that all men could learn of God, and not be controlled by the priesthood.

So, I cannot explain it. And no one can go back 500 years and learn all the details of that time. But I believe God was directing men at that time and bringing his Word to the common man.

There is much documentation for this, if you are sincerely interested, you can look it up. I get the impression you really are not interested in any view that opposes what you have already decided to believe.

There were textual errors in the KJB. Sometimes a publisher would accidently add or delete a word in the text. They might write "the sheep" when the text said simply "sheep". These things happen, the bible is a massive work. Sometimes they would make a typo like writing "she" instead of "he". So, that one letter mistake becomes a textual error. That kind of mistake is easy to make.

And sometimes when they were rewriting the scriptures to correct discovered errors they accidently introduced new errors. There have been famous bibles like the Murderers Bible.

These things happen. But those who know the scriptures catch these mistakes and they are corrected.

Many scholars believe the Pure Cambridge to be the standard.

I will not comment on Riplinger, I know almost nothing about her and her writings at all.

Well, as I said before, I cannot absolutely say because they were destroyed. It is certain that the TR was used for the bulk of the text.

I cannot follow what you are saying here. But if you think the difference between the CT and the TR is small and insignificant, I couldn't disagree with you more. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the TR. Either the CT deleted a multitude of words, or the TR added a multitude of words. This is no small or insignificant number, I am amazed you could say such a thing.