TR accuracy and history vs. other manuscripts

Hi Michelle, I will respond "backwards" if you don't mind since it is easier to start at the last and work up.

Let me ask you some questions, since you seem to have the answers:

1. Where is the TR today that the KJ came from?

2. How did the King James come to have so many exact verses directly out of the Geneva, the Bishop's and the Vulgate?

Again, if this were true, then we have a problem because the King James translators were open about HOW they translated the Bible using different sources.

This causes us have a second problem, what was the inspired Bible in 1590 in the English language?

And finally, obviously if there was a perfect English Bible, why was the King James translated to replace it?

 

This is your opinion and it is not Biblical that there is only one translation in English.

I never said that I did not believe that God's hand was not in the translation process in order to preserve his "Words". It obviously is, because he said He would (even though you keep misquoting Psalms, that clearly refers to "people" when taken in "context".)

There is just no proof for a single version in any particular language. Obviously, in Jesus' time He had the Septuagint (which had the apocrypha) and He had the Hebrew. When comparing manuscripts of the Seputagint, we find that Jesus appeared to be quoting from it. It is clear that He was definitely not quoting from the Hebrew in these places.

 

How can you "prove" that they were not added to "harmonize" the scriptures. These manuscripts containing (for instance the ending of Mark) are very new compared to the older manuscripts which did not contain them. Am I saying God did not preserve his Words? No. But, there is simply no evidence that the Oxford edition of the KJV is 100% error free.

 

First of all, God did not choose to have the originals written in English. Therefore, the words themselves changed anyway. As I said before, it is impossible to translate word for word when the English language simply does not have every tense and meaning of the Greek.

In the Old Testament, God gave His law to Moses. Moses (we think) wrote the first five books of the Old Testament (maybe not the end, but part of them). At least that is what tradition holds. Now, during the time the Prophets and scholars were teaching the people, he said to follow His Words. He would preserve His Words. It is obvious, since the language changed anyway, that the original words are no longer available to us. Nor are they available in English PERIOD, because like I said earlier, we do not HAVE those words.

Psalms is just misquoted by you and other KJVO.

Now lets bring the manuscripts up to 1611. As I said before, if we had those individual WORDS in the 1611 Bible, then there would have been no need to modify it over 100 times. And YES, not only was spelling different, but there ARE words that have changed. That point right there shoots down the 1611 inspiration theory, unless you want to change to a 1789 inspiration theory.

If you again insist on only spelling changes, I will provide you with word changes. Besides, the deletion of an entire MIDDLE section of the Bible called the apocyrapha.

See, you have put yourself in a corner by saying the exact "words" have changed rather than understanding what God meant when He says to live by every Word out of His mouth. Do you KNOW every word out of His mouth? Were they ALL recorded? Obviously Jesus made a few more comments than recorded in the gospels and even then those words vary from gospel to gospel.

You have to THINK about what Jesus is trying to say, in light of the facts. God was kind enough to give us a brain with more synapsis than there are stars in the visible universe. (literally trillions). He expects us to use a few of them.

You can say all day that each individual "word" is perfectly preserved without so much as a punctuation error (oh well, that was added much later). It does not change the fact that you cannot prove that the KJV is it? Unless you want to step off the deep end and say it is the Oxford edition, or the 1611 edition and then they were changed. Or something else. If what you say is true, then somewhere on this earth is a Bible that we have not found that was used by English speaking people before 1611 that had every single individual preserved word in English in it. It would OBVIOUSLY be an exact replica of the KJV Oxford.

If it did exist, it obviously was not in wide use. If it wasn't in wide use, then the argument that the KJV has been used by millions is shot down. The book the Islamics use is in wide use, but that certainly does not make it accurate.

Now, I am NOT going to rehash this stuff over and over, if it has been answered here, then there is no need for further response.

[ October 17, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Michelle, I do appreciate the way that you have asked questions and presented your viewpoint without frustration. It is a breath of fresh air and it is nice we can discuss the issue without slicing throats.

 

MVs defenders said that ALL the time. ASV agrees with the KJV on Psalm 12. </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV is very clear, if you read the verses before those quoted and quit pulling it out of context.

 

The NKJV New Testament. I am not sure if the Old Testament was the Masoretic text or another.

Point taken. . .

 

It is so obvious to anybody with half a brain that the King James is a reprint with a base of the Bishop's (and somewhat Geneva). Too many verses are identical and since no translator would use exactly the same words, it is obvious that much of it was translated from nothing.

Then the same thing can be said for the Latin Vulgate used by the translators.

I myself have made these comparisons and after only a single book it became so obvious that it was not worth continuing.

I believe this is the reason a certain person keeps saying that it is irrelevant what happened then, because there is no KJVo answer to the question.