The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

I hope everyone is aware that my statement to A-A about being a heretic was tongue-in-cheek.

I am relatively sure he really doesn't believe the Apocrypha is the Word of God.

I should have used a smiley

Any way I apologise to both A-A and the Webmaster because that sort of thing is verbotten.

I'm sorry A-A and Webmaster.

However the question Will asked (in his own words) remains and I will ask him a question like his own and also A-A if he is willing.

If you believe that the First Edition of the KJB of 1611 is the Word of God why did the KJ Bible correctors remove it by the 1769 edition?

HankD

 

No biggie .

 

Absolutely, Robert Sargent showed his chart concerning 5 Greek texts that these modern versions derived from. They differ each other because of the 5 Greek texts disagreeing each other. Strangely, these 5 Greek texts are gone back to the W/H text. Awesome!

Will, please do it!

 

How would you understand these modern versions disagreeing each other?

 

How would you understand these modern versions disagreeing each other? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I just wrote?

 

But *most* Old Latin copies and sources don't. There's actually *more* Old Latin support for "this day I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22 than for the TR/KJV reading. In fact, it could be said that TR/KJV reading is *not* supported by the Old Latin "majority text." So why is this Old Latin reading rejected when it has *far* better attestation in the Old Latin sources than some of the examples on your previous list, or the TR/KJV reading at Rev. 22:19? This seems rather inconsistent.

I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. You assign a kind of "papal infallibility" to Erasmus in his textual choices and to the KJV translators in their translational choices; I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices of the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text. You seem to believe that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live before 1611 (1769?) didn't have the word of God in his own language; I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611.

The KJV cannot be called "complete," since it demonstrably fails to convey many things found in the original language texts, and since it has demonstrably inferior translations in some places.

 

But *most* Old Latin copies and sources don't read like the TR/KJV. There's actually *more* Old Latin support for "this day I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22 than for the TR/KJV reading. In fact, it could be said that TR/KJV reading is *not* supported by the Old Latin "majority text." So why is this majority Old Latin reading rejected by the TR/KJV when it has *far* better attestation in the Old Latin sources than some of the examples on your previous list, or the TR/KJV reading at Rev. 22:19? This seems rather inconsistent.

I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. You assign a kind of "papal infallibility" to Erasmus in his textual choices and to the KJV translators in their translational choices; I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices concerning the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text. You seem to believe that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live before 1611 (1769?) didn't have the word of God in his own language; I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611.

The KJV cannot be called "complete," since it demonstrably fails to convey many things found in the original language texts, and since it has demonstrably inferior translations in some places.

 

Same ole' Will, eh, Arch? Corner him by asking for evidence for his view, & he responds with his "you don't have any final authority" stuff. That's HIS way of saying, "I'm clueless."

BTW, have you read his excuses for the differing readings of Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7 when compared with Luke 4:16-21 in the KJV?

I believe he has a list of excuses for the differing KJV readings between Isaiah 53:7-9 & Acts 8:32-33. But that's all they are-excuses. I believe those Scriptures were known for just a few years before our time, and the readers simply accepted the fact that different versions were in use 2K years ago. Thus, we see no commentary from the AV translators addressing those readings.

 

Everyone, please notice that Will dodges the issues Archangel and others have brought up in this thread. Like the other Onlyists, he's all rhetoric and no substance.

KJVOs simply cannot truthfully answer basic questions concerning their myth without shooting it down, so they play the old switcheroo game & try to steer the conversation to other subjects.

Will, you've done a bang-up job showing everyone that the various BVs differ among themselves, & you readily admit that you cannot prove one right & the others wrong, but yet, you cling to that man-made false KJVO doctrine. Your articles are more a set of excuses and opinion than anything else. Just face it-you don't present any PROOF for the KJVO myth because there isn't any such proof to present. It's a dream.(Or a nightmare.)

 

Uh,yeah.. Everytime I see your posts it's:


KJVO baloney

KJVO hooey.........

KJVO cannot........

KJVO are...........

KJVO BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.........


Tell me,when are you going to bring somthing to the discussion table??? Seems like you have nothing but innuendos and rhetoric..

 

Uh,yeah.. Everytime I see your posts it's:


KJVO baloney

KJVO hooey.........

KJVO cannot........

KJVO are...........

KJVO BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.........


Tell me,when are you going to bring somthing to the discussion table??? Seems like you have nothing but innuendos and rhetoric.. </font>[/QUOTE]I see YOU haven't exactly lit up the board with too many nuggets of wisdom, and now, in another old KJVO ploy, you simply parrot the opposition.

What have I brought to the table? I've reminded you of the proof of the origins of modern KJVO, from Ben Wilkinson in 1930 to Ruckman and Riplinger today. I've reminded you that God has preserved His word in English AS HE CHOSE, proven by the undeniable fact that no two English BVs are alike, ante- or post-AV 1611. I've reminded you that there's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. I've pointed out some booboos in the "inerrant" KJV. And I've repeatedly asked you gents for PROOF for the assertions in your doctrine, and so far, the only answers I've gotten are similar to yours quoted above. This translates into, "I AM CLUELESS".

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

 

I have shown you that believing that the KJB is perfect,and infallible goes back much farther.

I have reminded you that ALL "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)from bogus Papal manuscripts conflict one another in THOUSANDS of places..

Look,ALL of 200+ Laodacean "bibles" and the Protestant Bibles cannot be God's word:"HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWPINIONS?"

And I have posted scripture PROVING that God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him;God will not bless the new "bibles"! How do I know that? Because He has not YET.

You have done no such thing.People have been trying that baloney for years,nothing positive yet.

Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...


Again,you have brought nothing profitable to the table;just APING the opinion,and rhetoric of others that is as vile today as the day it was founded.....

 

I and millions of other people have gotten saved through reading these new "Bibles." Sounds like God has been blessing them to me.

 

So what you are telling me is that there isn't a single inerrant copy in the Greek? If, as you say, there is no complete perfect Word of God found in the original language, then how can you be certain that the KJV is perfect. What is there to compare it to?

As I have said before, I believe that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. Internal and external evidence points to this. However, the fact that we do not have a single perfect Greek manuscript sure makes it seem that man has, throughout the years, made things "less perfect," because we are, indeed, given over to our sin nature. We make mistakes - we are human. It is a logically fallacious leap to move from not having a single perfect manuscript to the King James Version, moving from imperfect to perfect. We as scholars of the Word do our best to uncover what the original manuscripts look like, and we've found that some of what the KJV is based on comes from additions that were placed in there by well-meaning humans, but were still added on. You could very well believe that those scribes were diviniely guided to add certain things, but I don't see why God would have left out things in the originals. The facts show that the manuscripts slowly changed with age. I don't believe that they moved closer towards perfection, arriving in its perfect state in the KJV. Common sense, logic, and doctrine all point in the opposite way.

And it is something of great substance. Here is a follow-up question: Do you believe that the original texts were inspired by God and the "correct words of God." How do you know? How do you get from a level of perfection to 1500 years of imperfection back to perfection? Where in history did God mess up in his preservation of the Scriptures?

Okay, so there were a few questions. I really am interested to hear your answers, though.

And yes, many of us, do believe that you guys are a little loopy!

 

Hey, I use John 16:13 and I Corinthians 2:9-13 to prove that the modern versions are valid, too! The Spirit chose to lead me to the cross through a modern version, so that proves that! Maybe you're listening to the wrong spirit, perhaps? All I know is that I am a saved person now because of the gospel message that was written in the NIV! Glory to God!


Everything, from slavery to the acceptance of homosexuality, has been "proven" using those Scriptures. (just do a quick search on the internet to find that!) If that is all you have Scripturally, then you have not much at all.