MV`s compared to JW`s NWT

Brother the Geneva/KJV was an acient landmark in founding this Country and Gods Word says not to remove them and modern bibles have done just what Gods Word KJB Forbids.

The Geneva and KJV Come from the same exact sources and agree over 95% so dont hand me your secular reasoning.


In Proverbs 22:28 the Bible says to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark.

Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered.

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text.

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.

 

Yes the truth pinches sometimes now lets think of language.


There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text.

However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "thee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.

 

Does your Bible version command you to Study?


2nd Timothy 2:15 in the ASV reads Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God.

The KJB reads Study to shew thyself approved unto God The word "study" is much more direct and clear than to simply say "give diligence." Of all the bible versions sold on the market today, only the King James commands us to STUDY! Of course, greedy heretics don't want you to study your Bible. For centuries, Catholics have been discouraged from studying the Bible.

The Vatican wants you to know enough to allow your priest to fill your head with vain traditions and lies of the devil. You had better study! Jesus commanded us in John 5:39... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!!! Of course, if you have an ASV then you have no command to study do you?


Make sure your bible will pass the test that commands you to study.

 

Glad to hear it Ann sorry for calling you a brother.The KJB is the most accurate Bible that glorifies our LORD as no other because the rest are missing hundreds of Words.

Since the KJB is 100% accurate then why go to those that are missing words that feeds your soul?

 

Sorry to hear ofyour computer prob`s.

Enter Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying.

Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading.

A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number.

The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of the earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.

 

My intent is the language of the KJV far advances modern day english.

I felt no pinch.

 

Brethren please read this in its entirety.The complete article can be found at the link below.Well worth the time to read it.



Accurate Translations

The question arises: How are we to know which translation is the most accurate? (17) As noted above, the controversy here is not over the Old, but the New Testament, at least as regards the textual issues. Just in the last century there have been numerous new translations, including the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New King James Version. Most of these new translations (the New King James Version being an exception) are based upon a Greek text of the New Testament, known as the Alexandrian Text or Critical Text, (18) that differs from the Greek text underlying the King James Version (and New King James Version), known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus), in over 5000 ways. Most newer translations rely heavily on a handful of early Greek manuscripts (particularly two: Codex Sinaiticus (19) and [especially] Codex Vaticanus) that were discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The theory that these documents (the alleged "neutral" text) are to be favored, primarily due to their greater age, was promulgated by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. (20) If it were true that the earlier codices are to be considered as the most trustworthy, then it would seem that they ought to differ the least among themselves. But this is not the case; even among these few manuscripts, there are numerous differences. (21)
The Westcott-Hort theory further maintains that some 85-90 percent of Greek manuscripts represented by the Received Text, which, unlike the Alexandrian Text, are in substantial agreement, underwent a radical editing process in the fourth century. Hence, they are unreliable. Other studies, however, have shown that this is simply not the case. "History is completely silent," wrote Harry Sturz, "with regard to any revision of the Byzantine [Received] Text." (22) As a matter of fact, there is evidence to show that the Alexandrian manuscripts were the ones tampered with, and these deliberate changes are the reason that these documents are so dissimilar. (23) As William Einwechter commented: "Due to this nearly total rejection of the value of the Byzantine [Received] Text as a witness to the original autographs, the scholars have established the MCT [Alexandrian Text] on the basis of only 10-15% of the available manuscripts." (24)

The Majority Text

Another group of New Testament scholars argues that the readings of the majority of manuscripts are to be preferred to the readings of a few older manuscripts. This is referred to as the Majority Text or Byzantine (25) Text theory. Because this text has been handed down and preserved by the church through the centuries, it is also referred to as the Traditional Text or Ecclesiastical Text. The Received Text belongs to the manuscripts of the Majority Text, but is not perfectly identical with it. (26) As far as this article is concerned, the Received Text and the Majority Text are used as generally synonymous terms. As stated by E. F. Hills: "The Textus Receptus is practically identical with the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts." (27)

According to the Westcott-Hort theory, manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted. After all, it is alleged, all of the Byzantine Text came from one related family. Hence, the great number of them carries little weight. According to the Byzantine Text theory, on the other hand, greater age is not nearly so important as number. First, one text being older than another in no way implies that it is superior. The older text itself could be errant. Too, the weight of textual evidence now reveals that the Byzantine Text readings go back at least to the time of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Contrary to the teachings of Westcott-Hort, wrote Harry Sturz, "distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early." They are attested to by early papyri and several of the church fathers. (28) In the words of William Einwechter, it is virtually certain that "this text [TR] was in continuous use in the Greek church from at least the 4th century until the time of the Reformation when Erasmus made this text the basis for the first printed edition of the Greek NT." (29) The fact that we do not possess any early copies of the Byzantine Text is easily explained: (1) the climate in Egypt, where the early Alexandrian Text manuscripts were found, is more arid, thus any text would last longer there; (2) the Egyptian manuscripts were probably not used, due to their corrupt nature, and therefore lasted longer, whereas the majority of manuscripts was frequently used and these manuscripts "wore out." (30)


Second, if numbers of similar manuscripts have a single ancestor, as is alleged to be the case with the Byzantine Text, it does not necessarily mean that the greater number carries little weight. It may well imply that the copyists of that day believed that ancestor to be the manuscript most faithful to the original. The manuscripts that are fewer in number were in all probability rejected by copyists; their scarcity indicates their corrupt nature. (31) Further, it is not the case that the numerous manuscripts of the Byzantine Text have all come from one common parent. Indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Byzantine Text documents come from numerous parts of Christendom, and are not related genealogically. (32)
Third, the churches in the East used the Byzantine Text for over 1000 years prior to the Reformation. The churches of the Reformation used the same text for another 350 years, and some still continue to use it. As stated by E. F. Hills, the Byzantine text was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine period (312-1453). For many centuries before the Protestant Reformation this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek church and for more than three centuries after the Reformation it was the text of the entire Protestant church. Even today it is the text which most Protestants know best, since the King James Version and other early Protestant translations were made from it. (33)

Moreover, there is every reason to believe that this same text was preserved "throughout the second and third centuries and down into the fourth century." (34) If the scholars who have followed Westcott-Hort theory in opting for the Alexandrian Text are correct, then the church, in many cases, has been without the most authentic text of the New Testament for nearly two millennia. This in itself does not indicate that God has "by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" the New Testament text. (35) This erroneous approach to textual criticism is more rationalistic than Biblical. It is highly subjective, rather than Biblically objective. It even has an Hegelian flair to it, supposing that somehow there must be a "progressive" element to textual criticism. (36)





http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/kjv_manuscript.html