They Dare Call This Science!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    They Dare Call This Science!

    Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament text of the King James Bible. The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.

    In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Horts magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

    In this study we will be looking at just a few of the places where the readings found in some of these modern versions are based on only one, two or sometimes three manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek texts. In most instances, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. The main versions referred to are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.

    Gospel of Matthew

    Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."

    Here the word "wife" is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits this word and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Likewise the word "hundredfold" (hekatontaplasiona) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, and "hundredfold" is the reading of the NIV, ESV, RV, ASV etc; but Vaticanus reads "many times as much" (pollaplastonta) and only the NASB so reads.

    Matthew 21:28-31 "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said I WILL NOT; BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, SIR; AND WENT NOT. Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST."

    This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and is the reading not only of the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV. However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons, but then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves again from the previous NASBs and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 95 Update now reads like the KJB.

    From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."

    Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders." All texts read "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) including Vaticanus, except Sinaiticus which omits these words. Here the NASB and NIV chose to follow ONE manuscript (Sinaiticus) and omit these words; yet "and grievous to be borne" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NKJV.

    One last verse of interest in Matthew is 27:24 where Pilate washes his hands and says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST PERSON." The reading of this "just person" (tou dikaiou toutou) is in all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus; only three manuscripts omit the word "just" or "righteous", two very minor and Vaticanus. Even when the Westcott-Hort text first came out, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version kept this word in their texts and read as the KJB, Douay, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac, Tyndale, Geneva, and Wycliffe. The first English version to omit this word "just" was the liberal RSV and from then on the NASB, NIV, and ESV followed suit and now omit the word because of Vaticanus. So the NASB, NIV now read: "I am innocent of this man's blood", leaving out the testimony of Pilate that He was a "JUST PERSON".

    Will Kinney
     
  2. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    They Dare Call This Science!


    Gospel of Mark

    Mark 13:33 "Take heed, watch AND PRAY; for ye know not when the time is." The words "and pray" are found in all texts including Sinaiticus. Only three are listed as omitting these words, two very minor and Vaticanus. The Revised Version, ASV, Catholic Douay, Lamsa's Syriac translation, NKJV all contain the words "and pray". But following the RSV the NASB, NIV, ESV now omit these words mainly because of Vaticanus.

    Mark 14:68. I mention this one because it is of interest to see the changing nature of what the modern scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism". Here we read: "But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; AND THE COCK CREW." These last words "and the cock crew" are found in the majority of all texts including A, C and D, the ancient Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions. They are also in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. When the Nestle text first came out, they omitted these words, but later put them back in. The first English version to omit these words was the RSV and the NIV also omits "and the cock crew". The NASB again is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 they omitted these four words, but then in 1995 the NASB put them back in and so does the NRSV, ESV, the upcoming ISV and Holman Christian Standard versions.

    What is a point of great curiosity here is that it is both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit the words "and the cock crew". Now the modern versions are starting to put these words back in the New Testament but they still omit literally thousands of words and several whole verses precisely because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omissions. Does this make any kind of rational sense to you?

    You see the modern versions have no settled text at all but it is in a state of constant change and flux. If the bibles didn't change from one edition to the next, then the professional scribes would all be out of work and would have to get a real job.

    Mark 14:72 "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And WHEN HE THOUGHT THEREON, he wept."

    Two things to notice about this verse. The words "the second time" are found in Vaticanus and the majority, yet they are omitted by Sinaiticus, but most versions retain the reading. Secondly, the words "when he thought thereon" (epibaloon) are found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet omitted by manuscript D. This manuscript D says "he began to weep" thus adding the word "began" and omitting "when he thought thereon". ONLY the NASB omits "when he thought thereon" which is found in the RV, ASV, NKJV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. The NASB simply says: "And he began to weep." The NIV, RSV and ESV have retained the reading of epibaloon and not followed D with its "BEGAN to weep", but they translate the whole phrase differently by saying: "And he broke down and wept." Here it is only the NASB that follows D and rejects all the others, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

    Mark 16 verses 9-20. These last 12 verses are entirely omitted by the RSV and many other modern versions either place these 12 entire verses in brackets (NASB) or with a footnote telling us "The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20" (NIV). The truth is only three manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and one obscure witness omit these words while they are found in over 2000 manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions and early Church Fathers.

    For my article showing the true nature of these two "most reliable early manuscripts" see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

    Dean Burgon wrote a book called The Last 12 Verses of Mark 16 which utterly destroys the arguments for omitting or questioning these words. Brother Marty Shue has written a brief article showing the overwhelming proof that these verses are authentic. Here is his article:

    http://www.avdefense.com/mark16.html

    If the new versionists were honest and consistent in thier "science of textual criticism", they would either not include these 12 verses in such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV because they are not in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or else they would properly include them and then restore the other 14 entire verses and multiple whole sections which they have deleted from the New Testament based on the readings found in Sinaiticus and or Vaticanus. It is that simple. As Dr. Gordon H. Clark wrote, "If a version brackets these verses, than you know that they are not going by the evidence."

    Will Kinney
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    They Dare Call This Science!

    Gospel of Luke

    Luke 8:43 "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any..."

    All the words in capital letters are missing only in Vaticanus and 2 other manuscripts, and are omitted by the RSV, NASB, and the NIV. However all these words are found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and are in the Revised Version, ASV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman, Douay and Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta.

    This is an interesting case of constant change among the modern versions. Westcott and Hort originally deleted all these words from their text and so did the earlier Nestle-Aland text. Then later the Nestle text added these words back again, but in brackets. The earlier RV, ASV retained them as they stand in the KJB and all earlier English versions like Tyndale and the Geneva Bible. Then the RSV omitted these words and so do the NASB, NIV. However now the other modern versions are once again putting all these words back in the text as we see with the ESV, ISV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Yet these newer versions continue in the main to follow the Westcott-Hort texts. Even the footnotes are deceptive. The NASB omits all these words and then tells us in a footnote "SOME mss. add...", while the NIV says "MANY mss. add..." Isn't scholarship a kick in the head!?!

    Luke 9:2 "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal THE SICK." Again we see the same fickleness in the "science of textual criticism" as before. The words "the sick" are "tous asthenountas" and they are found in every known manuscript including Sinaiticus except ONE, and that is Vaticanus. The words "to heal THE SICK" are found in the RV, ASV, NIV, ISV, Holman, but the RSV, NASB and ESV all continue to omit "the sick", based on one manuscript. The earlier Nestle text omitted the words but now they are back in their text again.

    Luke 10:41-42 "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful about many things, BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

    "but one thing is needful" is the majority reading of all texts, but a curious thing happens when we look at both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Instead of saying "but one thing is needful", these two "oldest and best" read: "but few things are needful, the one". ONLY the NASB from 1960 to 1977 and the Amplified version read: "BUT ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part."

    Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, ISV read as does the NASB from 1960 through 9 revisions to 1977. Ah, but then in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to go back to the other reading of "but one thing is needful" and so now the 95 Update reads like all the others.

    Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent."

    This is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, D, the Syriac Peshitta, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the brand new International Standard Version. Keep in mind that the RV, ASV and ISV are all generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts.

    However Vaticanus omits all the capitalized words above and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB reads: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

    Luke 12:39 "if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would HAVE WATCHED AND not have suffered his house to be broken through." "he WOULD HAVE WATCHED" is found in the Majority and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the RV, ASV and again the new ISV. However Sinaiticus omits these words and so do the NASB, NIV and ESV. Even Westcott and Hort originally retained these words, but later on, the Nestle text decided to omit them, but now they are appearing once again in the ISV. Our noted modern versions scholars are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

    Luke 14:5 "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" AN ASS is the reading of the Majority of texts and Sinaiticus, the RV, ASV and even the RSV. However Vaticanus reads SON instead of "an ass" and the NASB, NIV and ESV read: "Which of you having a SON or an ox that has fallen into a well...".

    Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

    This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1960 to 1972 the NASB likewise omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV and Holman Christian Standard also retain the verse and place it in their versions. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

    Luke chapter 24 is a real mess, especially in the NASBs.

    Luke 24:36 "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU."

    This is the reading found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only ONE manuscript omits the words "and saith unto them, peace be unto you" and that is the notorious manuscript D. Yet on the basis of this one manuscript the RSV and the NASB from 1960 through 1977 omitted all these words. The whole phrase is retained in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV and the NIV. Then in 1995 SOME of the NASBs decided to put them back in the text. The particular NASB 95 Udate I have still omits them, but I have heard that other NASBs 1995 now place the words back in.

    Luke 24:40 "AND WHEN HE HAD THUS SPOKEN, HE SHEWED THEM HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET." Again, ALL texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain this verse, but on the basis of only one manuscript (D) the RSV omitted the entire verse as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1972. Then in 1977 the NASB put this whole verse back in their version. The NRSV, ESV and NIV do contain this verse.

    Luke 24:51-52 "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. And they WORSHIPPED HIM AND returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Once more, all the words "and carried up into heaven" and "worshipped him and" are found in all texts except one manuscript - D again. Yet the RSV as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1977 omitted these words. Then in 1995 the NASB added them back to the text. They have always been in the RV, ASV, and they are in the NRSV, ESV as well as the NKJV.

    The new ISV (International Standard Version) still manages to sow confusion and doubt by the notes found within the text. Notice these verses: 24:3: but when they went in, they didn't find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Other mss. lack of the Lord Jesus) Lk 24:6: He is not here but has been raised. (Other mss. lack He is not here, but has been raised) Lk 24:12: Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. He stooped down and saw only the linen cloths. Then he went home wondering about what had happened. (Other mss. lack verse 12.) Lk 24:36: Jesus Appears to the Disciples While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Other mss. lack and said to them, “Peace be with you.”) Lk 24:40: After he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. (Other mss. lack verse 40).

    The truth of the matter is that only one manuscript lacks all these words and whole verses, all of which are omitted by the RSV, NEB (New English Bible 1970) and most were omitted by the NASB from 1960 till either 1972 or 1977. That single manuscript is D. Dear saints, it should be obvious that this mysterious process is not a "science" but the strange brew of modern-day textual alchemists.


    Will Kinney
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    They Dare Call This ACCURATE?

    Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are NOT based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text but on thousands of Greek manuscripts.

    These have NOT ADDED the extra 5000 words added by the Orthodox Priests and copyists.

    And so on and so on.

    Same old "cut and paste" from the only sect.
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, somewhere I heard that the onlys like to inundate people with information so that it seems they know what they are talking about. And when the average person gets soooo overwhelmed with "knowledge", the average person just gives up.

    The "shock and awe" doesn't work with me.
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Translations are translations

    Same thing said in a different language.
     
  7. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every claim that one has "subtracted" means we must automatically wonder if maybe it was really the other that "added".

    And Lo, we wind up having to consider, in each case, the evidence. Imagine that.
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    Old time proverb.

    So, pastor Larry, the new versions aren't based on the Westcott-Hort text, huh?


    Are the modern bible versions still based on the Westcott/Hort text? Some who try to defend the nasb, niv, rsv and nrsv say that present day scholars have abandoned the Westcott-Hort text. Is this true? Let’s see what the leading “scholars” have to say concerning this issue.

    Perhaps the scholar most respected by those who hold to the modern versions is Bruce Metzger. Metzger quotes in his Textual Commentary on page 10: “Subsequently other critical editions appeared, including those prepared by Constantine von Tischendorf, whose eighth edition (1869-72) remains a monumental thesaurus of variant readings, and the influential edition prepard by two Cambridge scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1881). It is THIS LATTER EDITION that was taken as the BASIS for the PRESENT United Bible Societies’ edition.

    Also in a letter written to Dr. Kirk DiVietro in 1990, Metzger stated, “We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence.”

    In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament--Yesterday and Today, Mr. Metzger makes the following statement: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.”

    Another well know modern bible proponent, D. A. Carson, in his book The King James Version Debate 1979, p.75, says in an attempt to defend Westcott and Hort: “What shall we say about the vast majority of evangelical scholars, including men in whom were found the utmost piety and fidelity to the Word along with scholarship second to none? These men HOLD that in the basic textual theory Westcott and Hort WERE RIGHT.”

    John R. Kohlenberger, one of the editors of the niv translation and its concordance says in his book Words About the Word, 1987 on page 42: “Westcott and Hort...all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present have adopted their basic approach...{and} accepted the Westcott and Hort text.”

    None so blind as those who refuse to see.


    Will
     
  9. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gospel of John

    John 7:8-10 Is Jesus Christ a liar?

    In the KJB, NKJV, Revised Version, NIV, ISV and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard we read the words of the Lord Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. But when he had said these words unto them he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

    NOT YET (houpoo) is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus. However Sinaiticus has Jesus saying "I DO NOT GO unto this feast" (ouk). The NASB, ASV (notice the ASV and the RV differ from each other), RSV, NRSV, and ESV all follow Sinaiticus here instead and have the Lord say: "I am NOT GOING up to this feast...but after his brothers had
    gone up to the feast, then he also went up" (ESV).

    John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery. These entire 12 verses are included in the Majority of all texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta translated by Lamsa; as well as the Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these 12 entire verses and so does the Revised Standard Version. At least the RSV was being consistent in their method of adopting the Westcott-Hort Greek text. However the NASB, NIV and ESV all include these verses in their versions. Why? If they already have rejected 14 other entire verses in the New Testament on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then why retain these extras twelve? The NASB, NIV and ESV all contain footnotes for these verses saying: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" (NIV 1978 edition.) Unless you have the NIV Scofield edition 1982 which says: "Although not found is some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ's declaration, "I am the light of the world" (8:12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees' word in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel."

    If the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars really believe Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best and most reliable texts, then they should follow them and not include these 12 verses in their versions. Why omit some 5000 words from the New Testament primarily because of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus, not follow them in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, and then call this whole textual process "scientific"?

    John 9:4 "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." Both "I" must do the works, and "him that sent ME" is the reading in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars got themselves in a bit of a bind here because their "oldest and most reliable" texts are in total disarray.

    The NASB, NIV, ESV say: "WE must work the works of him that sent US." They came up with this reading because Vaticanus says "WE must work"; but then Vaticanus also ends with "him that sent ME", while Sinaiticus has "him that sent US". So they adopted the scientific method of winging it as long as it differs from the King James Bible. But now the new ISV is coming out and guess what? They have gone back to the KJB reading of "I must do the works of him that sent ME."

    Will K
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like it, I like it alot. [​IMG] [​IMG] Good posts Will Kinney.
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Will,

    My Toyota has an oil leak somewhere. There is enough evidence: oil drops on my driveway, I have to check/top-up the oil occasionally, etc. I know my Toyota has a flaw in it. Despite this flaw, two facts remain: 1. it is still a great little car and gets the job done, and 2. its imperfections does not prove that my Oldsmobile is perfect in every detail.

    Yes, this post belongs in the Bible Versions forum. [​IMG]

    [edit: I'm not saying I agree that the exact verses you discuss above are problems in some of the newer versions. Is there any in particular you want me to address?]

    Brian
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Dare Call This Inspired!

    The creator of the text from which the KJV was largely translated was an unrepentant Roman Catholic. He does not qualify as an Apostle, prophet, nor holy man of old. His work can be very scholarly... but not inspired.

    The Anglican scholars who translated the KJV affirmed, believed, and followed false doctrine. They claimed their word choices for themselves and affirmed that other translations into English were the Word of God just as surely as their translation was. These men were very scholarly... but not inspired.

    As stated before, any argument founded on false premises is faulty no matter how reasonable sounding... or in this case verbose... the supposed support is.
    This part of Will's premise assumes things which on closer investigation are found to be untrue.

    First, that these MV's are based on the W/H text. They aren't. They are based on texts that work off of W/H's research and some of their methodology. However, evidence discovered since 1881 has been considered and incorporated. Also, both the methods and conclusions of W/H have been critically studied for different conclusions.

    Second, Will assumes that "5000" differences between the KJV and other versions are a result of omissions/deletions on the part of MV's. This is nothing more than assuming his conclusion then setting about to accept or reject evidence based on his conclusion. In other words, circular reasoning.

    Third, he argues that the WH text and thus the other modern texts are based "primarily" on two old texts. This is somewhat true but he fails to mention that these texts are frequently compared with old versions and patristic quotes. There are also means for using internal evidence from a document.
    Of course what Will leaves unsaid is the explanation. How many of these differences are word order, spelling, obvious copying errors, etc? How many are real differences of substance?

    However since Will has established a rule by which he seems willing to operate. I will make the following true statement: Within the 5000+ mss existing from the Byz. family there are 10's of thousands of disagreements. This is especially true if we use the KJV as the standard since most BT mss don't even contain all of the books that the KJV does.

    In case you missed the subtle redirection here, The argument is that there is 99% agreement over what the text of the NT is.

    The link provided doesn't even prove Will's point. If that list is the extent of the real differences then I count something less than 1400 words involved out of 180,000 in the KJV. You can do the math but that is definitely less than 1% difference.

    Even if one uses Will's unsubstantiated claim of 5000 omitted words, we are left with a difference of about 2.8% in raw numbers before we even consider how many real differences of substance there are. For instance one of the examples in his link is Romans 8:1. Before claiming this as an omission, one should consider the implications of inserting the phrase at verse one (making salvation dependent on one's walk, not God's grace... and also note that the phrase is properly included in verse 4 where it belongs.

    If you are "shocked" then please take the time to check out why there are differences and don't just assume that KJVO's are right and truthful... for that matter, don't just assume that I am right or truthful. Check it out. Be objective. And be willing to accept the truth even if it isn't what you thought before.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Itching ears like to be scratched.
     
  14. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Itching ears like to be scratched. </font>[/QUOTE]With the truth, yes.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    How accurate are they? Only 1%.

    Incorrect! I was like you until I found out the facts, then I am no longer like you. Modern versions's Greek texts are gone back to the W/H Text. Do you know that?

    "Cut" and "paste" from them are neccessary for you to WAKE UP! Or you ignore them and sleep.
     
  16. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great posts Will. AMEN and AMEN.
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will said:
    Physician, heal thyself.

    Scott wrote:
    Unfortunately, they don't like the truth. May the blinders be removed.
     
  18. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian,

    What year/model is it? I'd check the oil pan and valve valve cover first. I hope it's not a main seal.

    Check out: Bob Is The Oil Guy

    By the way, wouldn't the oil in the car be akin to the ink on the page? I better stop typing before I start making sense. [​IMG]

    Jason [​IMG]
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've got a lot of nerve comparing your oil-drooling Yota to the preserved word of God(KJB)!!Is there no end to the falicy???
     
  20. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ compared the kingdom of God to a lot of common things. Why should this be so putrid?

    Perhaps because the analogy is a little TOO accurate?
     

Share This Page

Loading...