Why I am KJV only

Pioneer and Thomas,

Apparently, you both have not read my posts. I have listed the 20 words contained in the footnote above. I stated so I my reply. So far Thomas, you have been the one that keeps refusing to talk about this issue. Here are the specific words again, please stop telling me to list them because here they are again:

v. 16: insertion of tou before Dauid and orthrinos instead of proinos v. 17:
aorist tense elthe twice instead of the present erkou, aorist tense eltheto instead of the present erkestho, insertion of kai after erkestho, present tense lambanetw instead of the aorist labeto, and insertion of to before hudor; v. 18: summarturomai gar instead of marturo ego, present tense epitithA instead of the aorist epithA, pros tauta instead of ep auta, and omission of to before the last occurrence of bibliw v. 19: present tense afairA instead of the aorist afelA, omission of tou before the first occurrence of bibliou, afairAsei instead of afelei, bibliou instead of tou xulou, insertion of kai before twn gegrammenwn, and omission of to) before the last occurrence of bibliw v. 21: insertion of hAmon before Ihsou and insertion of humon after panton.

Chick

 

Furthermore, Thomas, if you don't want to discuss the issue, just say so! If you don't want to tell me which words in the TR have Greek manuscript support, just say so! If you don't want to defend your position, just say so!

Chick

 

Chick,

I listed this problem in at least two earlier threads some time ago with a reference to Combs' article and received no response. Some of the variants do have English equivalents and some do not. All are issues that have no Greek support. I hope that you are more successful with this discussion than I have been. I couldn't even get anyone to address it.

Your post at the top of this page was clear as to what you objected to and what research you had done. It was also abundantly clear that you were willing, able, and interested in discussing it.

 

Chick,
Thanks for the research and the good posts.

It look like somebody got overwhelmed with the facts you posted and resorted to a modified ad hominem.

Keep plugging away.

 

Pioneer,

Here you go...

v. 16: insertion of tou before Dauid ("The David", instead of "David") No effect on translation.
V. 16: orthrinos instead of prwinos ("early in the morning" instead of "early, belonging to the morning." Basically similar meanings in English)
v. 17: aorist tense elthe twice instead of the present erkou, The English on this one is the same. The emphasis with the aorist is unspecified kind of action, whereas the usually indicates some sort of progression, but here is likely an Aoristic present, focusing the readers attention on action that happens suddenly, and then is over. Of course the imperative mood indicates a command.
v. 17: aorist tense elthetw instead of the present erkesthw, ("Let him come") Same as the last example, except the present is likely a perfective present--the one who is thirsty comes, with results that carry on…
v. 17: insertion of kai after erkesthw, ("let him come, and" instead of "let him come") This one you can see the difference in the KJV and the NASB.
v. 17: present tense lambanetw instead of the aorist labetw, ("take water [continually]" instead of "take water" in an ingressive sense [focusing on the entrance into the state of having taken water].
v. 17: and insertion of to before hudor; ("The water" instead of "water") Using italics to indicate which words are supplied for smooth translation, I would translate "take the water", because water here is definite in context and we should supply "the" in English. The TR actually supplies "The" even without mss. support.
v. 18: summarturomai gar instead of marturw egw ("bear witness with" instead of "bear witness")
v. 18: present tense epitithA instead of the aorist epithA, (Not a big difference in English: "If anyone [continues] to add" instead of "if anyone adds" in an ingressive sense.
v. 18: pros tauta instead of ep auta ("unto these things"-KJV instead of "to them"-NASB)
v. 18: and omission of tw before the last occurrence of bibliw ("book" instead of "the book") However, the article would go un-translated anyway, due to the presence of the demonstrative pronoun.
v. 19: present tense afairA instead of the aorist afelA (similar to shift from aorist to present as demonstrated above)
v. 19: omission of tou before the first occurrence of bibliou ("of book" instead of "of the book") The KJV however, properly inserts "the" because book is definite.
v. 19: afairAsei instead of afelei (alternate spelling in Greek-no effect on English)
v. 19: bibliou instead of tou xulou, ("book" instead of "tree"--"Book of life"-KJV instead of "tree of life"-NASB)
v. 19: insertion of kai before twn gegrammenwn ("and which are written" instead of "which are written") NASB: "which are written"; KJV: "and from the things which are written")
v. 19: and omission of tw before the last occurrence of bibliw (same as similar error in verse 18)
v. 21: insertion of hAmwn before Ihsou ("our Jesus" instead of "Jesus") NASB:"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all"; KJV: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." The hAmwn (our) does have some support in the latin, and one Gk manuscript, 205, however, 205 is dated 15th century (very late) and is probably an insertion due to influence from the Latin.
v. 21: insertion of humwn after panton. ("you all" instead of "all") The very last words in Revelation are disputed even by the committee of the UBS text, but humwn is an option that has no Gk mss support. The KJV includes it though: "be with you all"

As Pastor Larry kindly reminded, not all these errors have resulted in direct errors in English versions, but the ones there that did are definitely worthy of notice.

Chick

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

So, Chick, how does all of this affect the translation, and what doctrines are compromised by the minor variants?

And, do you just dismiss out of hand any textual or patristic evidence that agrees with the TR readings, or do you disregard it because it is in the minority?

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Thomas,

"book of life" is quite different from "tree of life"

I never said that any of these would affect any doctrine at all. They don't. My original point was that there were words in the last six verses of the KJV that are errors, because they were based on Greek words that have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever.

I never would dismiss out of hand patristic evidence or early versions, but these without any Greek manuscript counterparts are to be treated as highly suspect, simply because we do not know what would have led such a reading to appear in a church father, or in an early version.

Thanks for asking,

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
"book of life" is quite different from "tree of life"

My original point was that there were words in the last six verses of the KJV that are errors, because they were based on Greek words that have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever.

I never would dismiss out of hand patristic evidence or early versions, but these without any Greek manuscript counterparts are to be treated as highly suspect, simply because we do not know what would have led such a reading to appear in a church father, or in an early version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But I already posted evidence, admittedly minority, for the reading "book of life." If that is what you are talking about, why do you say it is without Greek MS support? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Verse 19, the CT has "tree of life" while the AV reads "book of life" as do Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops, Stephens and Beza. Greek support for the AV reading can be found in 296, 2049, 2067(mg), the vulgate, Clementine, the Coptic version (Bohairic), the Arabic, Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397. Speculum, Pseudo-Augustine, Latin V, Primasius, Adrumentum, Latin 552, Andreas, Cappadocia 614, Hymo, Malberstadt, and Latin 841. Hoskier states that he doubted the "legend" that Erasmus translated this phrase from the Vulgate, but suggests he followed either 141, Codex 2049, or perhaps both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:


What are these words in KJV that you think are in error? How about writing out for us the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation as you think they should have been written.

Bro. Steve Smith

P.S. I told you I was no Greek scholar. I only know English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And after that, Chick, can you jump through three hoops while holding a burning torch in your mouth?

 

Hey, folks why are we even bothering to post when our moderator knows all and sees all and we are all wrong, uneducated underlings?

Just gigging you a bit doc, I love you, too.

 

Thomas,

I could care less what "Hoskier" believes, because Bill Combs has information telling that Erasmus readily admitted that he had copied the Latin into Greek. It would be extremely easy to make a fool of Combs if indeed he made up the quote from Erasmus showing his admission.

Furthermore, your three mss that you say support "book" instead of "tree" are likely late mss. I will have to go back and check for myself. I will predict (of course I could be wrong), but I predict that they are late, and perhaps even edited (changed from tree to book due to Latin influence).

Furthermore, there were several other English words without Greek support in my long list faulty Greek words in the TR. Simply go back and read them. If I must, I will summarize them here at the end of the thread.

Regards,

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
P.S. I told you I was no Greek scholar. I only know English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To begin this thread, you listed your top two reasons for being KJVO as:
#1 - It is based upon superior manuscripts
#2 - It is based upon superior scholarship

If you are not a Greek scholar, do not have a solid scriptural basis, have not researched the history of the TR nor Bible translation/transmission in general, and have not considered the honest arguments in favor of the CT and MV's then on what basis do you make the above assertions?

 

Chick, let's try one more time. How do the Greek words you object to in the TR affect the English translation, and what doctrines do they affect?

Other than "tree" verses "book" which we have already dealt with, what translation/doctrine is affected by the Greek words you object to?

 

Tom, I am gone till Monday, but if you want to get a head start, go back to my list and see them listed there. We are not yet done with "tree/book" yet either,

Have a good weekend, Chick

 

Thomas,

Obviously I agree with Chick on this issue. I think the issue, especially between us and you, is not the English translation. The issue is that if you are going to claim "superiority of text" for the TR then you must account for the Greek words that have no Greek support. Latin and versional support is weakened without Greek support.

I too, do not believe that we are done with book/life issue. You claim that Hoskier doubted the legend. The problem with the "legend" is that Erasmus himself said he translated from the latin to the Greek to restore the text. Hoskier appears to be contradicting what Erasmus said for some reason. I don't know why that is.

 

What difference does it make? I have asked this question several times and have not, as yet, received an answer.

And why does one anomoly negate the entire Byzantine text-type? Why can I no longer consider it superior? Superior doesn not mean perfect, only superior.

 

What difference does it make?

If you are going to claim there are no errors of fact in the KJV there must of necessity be no errors of fact in the TR (unless you argue that the KJV fixed the errors by not translating what the text has). But if John did not write these 20 words in question, than indeed it is an error of fact and it misrepresents what he said.

On the issue of superiority, a superior text would seem to need to base its reading on adequate (even if disputed) support. This text, to my knowledge, is not disputed except by the radical KJVOnlyites.

It is not a great practical difference perhaps, but there is a tremendous philosophical difference about how we determine the superiority of text types.

I do not argue that this undermines the byzantine text types ... there is plenty of other evidence to undermine them . I simply think it refutes those who want to argue that the TR is closest to the original or that it is perfect, etc. In fact, this is a great text in support of the theory of an eclectic text, regardless of whether one chooses the UBS/NA text or not. Clearly the TR needs some help here it seems.

 

Larry, you are completely over your head. You are discussing an entirely different subject than the one we are discussing.