The Bible war.

[Yeshua1]

The KJV is not an inerrant translation!

KJVO state that it is...

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That does not mean that it is the correct wording though...

 

[Yeshua1]

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.”

eramus also took certain things from the Vulgate latin into His greek text, and your knowledge here indeed shows that His completed TR was not a fully 100 % free of any reconstruction or conjecture, and the Kjv itself based off of that did not follow his text 100 % of the time!

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

So which Greek text would be the right one for KJVO to be correct?

 

[37818]

KJVO state that it is...

That is the problem with some, if not all, who hold KJVO view point.

 

[37818]

Overall the KJV is still better than the modern translations. There are the well known points of disagreement. Some obscure.

 

[Yeshua1]

Overall the KJV is still better than the modern translations. There are the well known points of disagreement. Some obscure.

There are instances where Nas is to be preferred though!

 

[TCassidy]

See post # 67!

So your answer is NO, you can't?

 

[TCassidy]

Overall the KJV is still better than the modern translations.

Why?

 

[37818]

There are instances where Nas is to be preferred though!

Yes. Revelation 15:3. But then it has the same reading as the NWT in John 1:18. The difference being a capitalized "G" in English.

 

[37818]

Why?

The reading follows the f35 text more often than other modern translations.

 

[Yeshua1]

The reading follows the f35 text more often than other modern translations.

Is that the best text to use?

 

[TCassidy]

The reading follows the f35 text more often than other modern translations.

And why is it important that the KJV text follows the F35 reading? The KJV translators didn't have F35 in 1604-1611 while the KJV translation was being done. And F35 dates to around 1100 AD. Shouldn't that 1000 year gap cause us concern?

 

[Yeshua1]

So your answer is NO, you can't?

The so called experts can, as that article made a clear case that the Majority text was not known in the church until 4 th century, as the first 300 years would ahve been very close to the so called Critical text!

 

[37818]

Is that the best text to use?

Where it would be in agreement with the original. Now what needs to be understood on a case by case is why a particular reading should be understood to be most likely the original as opposed to not be.

 

[TCassidy]

Majority text was not known in the church until 4 th century, as the first 300 years would ahve been very close to the so called Critical text!

How do you know that?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know that?

I was just stating what that article was saying in regards to what the early Church had for their text!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where it would be in agreement with the original. Now what needs to be understood on a case by case is why a particular reading should be understood to be most likely the original as opposed to not be.

Is that like when the translators of the modern versions use an ekelectic text?

 

[Rippon]

What is now known as the Majority text was the minority text for the fist several centuries. It wasn't until after the 9th century that the Byzantine text became the dominant, or Majority text

 

[37818]

What is now known as the Majority text was the minority text for the fist several centuries. It wasn't until after the 9th century that the Byzantine text became the dominant, or Majority text

What is the evidence?