37818
Well-Known Member
Romans 8:9; Romans 8:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible war.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
Give an example as to what you mean?
37818
Well-Known Member
The KJV is not an inerrant translation!
Don't hold your breath. He never backs up his ridiculous claims with anything except more ridiculous claims.
Can you back up that claim with any actual facts?
Mat 17:21 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.
Translation: "But this kind doesn’t go out except by prayer and fasting.”
The vast majority of all Greek manuscript evidence includes the above reading.
Is your question referring to the places where Erasmus or Beza are claimed to have introduced conjectures into their Greek text editions?
Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208).
Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 247). Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-criticial method” (p. 198).
William McKane asserted: “Fulke’s defence of Beza’s arbitrariness in the cases of which Martin complains shakes one’s confidence in his judgment as a textual critic. There is no question of producing textual evidence to support Beza’s conjectures. These guesses were made by Beza in the hope that manuscript evidence would support them at some future date” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 92).
37818
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the heads up.
According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).
In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463). James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). James White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).
The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be” at this verse. Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that put in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ according to a consistent application of Waite‘s claim?
Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”
Advocating the use of consistent just measures/standards would be cleaving to that which is good (Rom. 12:9), and opposing the use of inconsistent, unjust measures/standards [double standards] evident in KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would be abhorring that which is wrong or evil.
The Scriptures teach that the use of unjust divers measures would be an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).
37818
Well-Known Member
You have shown me nothing except, the KJV at this reference has no known Greek manuscript to support it. There are three known readings, "the holy", "and the holy", and "and holy." "the holy" is what I understand of the three to be the best supported reading. The TR has the longer reading, "and the holy."
Last edited:
You may want to read that again.
TR Rev 16:5 και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος οτι ταυτα εκρινας
WH Rev 16:5 και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ο ην| ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας.
37818
Well-Known Member
My source has: και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας
Stephens 1550. as used in The Interlinear Greek Eglish New Testament. Zondervan Pubjshing Houes. And from Wilbur N. Pickering's, (ThM PhD) f35 Greek New Testament text apparatus.
Novo Texto Grego do N. T. « Prunch
http://www.prunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/F35-GNT.pdf
If those do not work. Google f35 GNT pdf.
Yes, I know what Pickerings Family 35 says. That is not the point. The difference is between the TR and the CT.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I would consider myself a traditional Received Text kind of guy.
That is not completely true. There is the same difference between editions of the Textus Receptus. There is not one TR text that is the same in all the twenty to thirty TR editions. Only the TR editions that have the conjecture introduced by Beza have the reading followed in the KJV. The earlier TR editions by Erasmus and Stephanus, also used in the making of the KJV, would have a different reading, the one followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.
According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).
Which one? There are over 30 of them, all different. And how do you decide which one is the most accurate?
Yes, that is what I meant!
See post # 67!
- Status