1. 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!

Former KJVO whose eyes are now open!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Deborah B., Oct 8, 2004.

  1. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Excellent reason why to avoid archaic translations and get one that is true to God's word using the language that is understood today.
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3, I will send a CD to anybody with a photographic copy of every page (including the apocrypha) of an originally printed 1611 King James. All I ask is a donation of about 5 bucks to cover the cost and time of making a new copy and shipping. Believe me, I'm not making money on this, just don't want 100 requests for a free copy that I can't afford. It is in the public domain. (Well, not according to England).

    It is in WordPerfect format, but is a photograph on each page. I can provide it in pdf format. ;)
     
  3. Deborah B.

    Deborah B. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    In regards to Luke 4:4-8, I like the way Holman has included the footnotes with regards to other mss. To me it shows their intent on honesty and not biased opinions.

    By the way, I cannot make an opinion on which mss is best when I don't know anything about them. My initial feelings are to question the ones that are RCC in origin, although I don't know which one is, if there is one.(?) Call me predjudice or whatever, but I do not trust RCC motives. Is there an mss that did not have "motives"? Everytime I try to research different mss, it is far too technical for me to understand, and there are too many of them that I don't know which translations use which. Is there some place that explains mss in very simple terms? Or else how can I form an opinion as to which is the best? I trust a lot of you have done a lot of research on mss, I just want to have God's words, plain and simple, and in a format that I can understand, or else what would be the purpose if I couldn't apply it to my life and my teaching to others? Do KJVO think that I am going to hell if I am reading anything other than KJV?? Why does this have to be such a complicated issue????? Is there not a simple answer?

    In Christ,
    Deborah
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deborah, It is not nearly as complicated as you think. Let me try to give you a simple idea of the MSS. Dr. Bob and others, feel free to jump in and correct me. I am simply trying to keep this simple so that Deborah and others who do not understand manuscripts can understand.

    Many, many old documents have been found in various places. Amazingly, these documents were extremely close on a major portion of their scriptures with only very minor differences. There are majority texts (Byzantine), Textus Receptus (called the received text -- just a name) and Alexandrian texts found in Alexandria and thought to be older to the newer texts listed above (by a hundred years or so). I am not going to go into the actual "form" of these documents, but understand there are a couple or more different materials used and ways of binding or compiling the old manuscripts (such as scroll format, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

    Now remember, the old testament was preserved so well by the Jews that there is little doubt that we have EXTREMELY accurate to the original copies.

    The differences lie in the New Testament documents. As they were passed around through different groups and scribes, often there were mistakes made when copying. For instance, leaving out a line, mispelling, other mistakes. Most of these can be resolved by the sheer number of documents.

    During the time of the KJV, the KJV translators chose to use the Textus Receptus. At least that is what was claimed. In reality, the KJV was more of an upgraded Geneva and Bishop's Bible with references to the TR and even the Latin Vulgate (the old Latin Bible used for centuries), when differences in some of these manuscripts were found, the KJV translators often referred to the Vulgate to fill in the blanks.

    The KJV used spelling that we do not use today, so many different versions were made since 1611. A lot of mistakes were corrected by the time the Oxford version came out. The King had a copyright on the KJV and the pilgrims were actually thought to have brought over the Geneva Bible. Later, the colonies started printing their own KJV in direct conflict with the King's copyright decree. By this time, Americans were rebelling, so it did not matter. (To them.)

    Later, older documents have been found, some in Alexandria. Some of these documents leave out some verses which do not change doctrine. Scholars have agreed to either leave off the verses or words in some of the new Bibles due to the perceived accuracy of older documents (closer to the originals). Often the words are left in with a footnote that some manuscripts do not contain them. This is just honesty on the part of the translators. (Example: ending of Mark--which had many endings in different documents, some with parts of the ending, some with none of the ending. Very few agreed.)

    It was and is thought by many scholars that well meaning scribes of the past may have added a few words here and there in an attempt to stress a certain point. Of course, this is against what we believe because we want the Words of God without addition by human scribes.

    Throughout all of this, there is still no doctrine changed and God's Word stands, in many good versions today.

    English has changed since 1611, and although many of the terms are still in the dictionary, they are not in common use today, making the Bible difficult to read. See the thread on Words in the KJV that are not easily understandable.

    It is necessary for new translations to stay up with the changes in our language.

    Some day, English will change to the point that the KJV will be literally unreadable to the average person and new versions WILL be necessary.

    Many people who have grown up with the KJV have few problems understanding it, but a person entering a church will find it difficult to understand.

    The Latin Vulgate was a translation.
    The Bishop's was a translation.
    The Geneva was a translation.
    The KJV was a translation.
    Several versions of the KJV are all translations.
    The NKJV is a translation (using the TR for the New Testament--if you are TR preferred.)

    See, if you do not like the Alexandrian documents, then you have an alternative in the NKJV.

    Many think the Alexandrian documents are purposely degradated because of the sin in Alexandria at the time. But, they were kept by people who were Christians in groups who wanted to maintain God's Word just as much as the other scribes.

    The bottom line: God is AMAZING, He kept His word to us in keeping His "WORD" intact without doctrinal change since the first century (and before).

    Even the apocrypha was included as a part of the KJV 1611 version. And, unlike people try to say, there is NOTHING to indicate that the apocrypha was not scripture in a 1611. You can look at photos of the 1611 and see this is true. It was simply placed between the Olde Testament and the New Testament. So, the bottom line, a person who claims to be a 1611 KJV believer, is not so, unless they believe the apocrypha is included.

    Correct me scholars, this was just a skimming overview of how the translations came to be. I left out the details on purpose to try to simplify the flow.

    Dr. Bob, please feel free to correct any of my story. (I ask him, because I trust him Deborah)
     
  5. Deborah B.

    Deborah B. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have heard of one mss locked up in the Vatican. Is this true, if so, which one?
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Knowing the Catholics, I would imagine they think they have the original manuscripts.

    Just look at Israel where every rock has a Catholic temple on it claiming it was something Jesus touched. (I'm not saying that all are wrong, but I'm sure some are.) People tend to worship the item more than God.

    This is honestly the reason I feel that the manuscripts were lost--otherwise people would worship the manuscripts themselves. Idol worship. . .
     
  7. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Debora
    "I have heard of one mss locked up in the Vatican. Is this true, if so, which one? "
    "
    It is called (surprise) Vaticanus.
     
  8. Sakrysta

    Sakrysta New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just for clarification's sake, the ORIGINAL documents would be called "autographs." The COPIES of the originals are "manuscripts." [​IMG]

    And for what it's worth, I think Phillip has done an excellent job of covering the issue from the same position that I hold. [​IMG]
     
  9. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Deborah B: “I cannot make an opinion on which mss is best when I don't know anything about them. My initial feelings are to question the ones that are RCC in origin, although I don't know which one is, if there is one.(?) .

    Inability to make determinations would likely reflect most people’s view regarding the manuscripts. No reason why everyone has to be an "expert"; however, it would do some good if everyone could be divested of propaganda and misinformation stemming from the KJVO camp.

    To correct misimpressions: the only Greek NT MSS that “are RCC in origin” are in the imagination of certain KJVO advocates. You want *real* RCC manuscripts, you need to go to the Latin Vulgate.

    The Greek NT MSS -- regardless of texttype -- are products of the Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodox Church (which some would consider “catholic” in another direction). But if the Greek MSS were to be excluded on the basis of their “Eastern Orthodox” connections, we would have *no* Byzantine MSS on which to build, and *no* Textus Receptus based primarily on Byzantine MSS, etc.

    Deborah B: “Is there an mss that did not have "motives"? “

    Certainly. Nearly all of them, regardless of texttype, had *no* motives except to continue the perpetuation of the word of God as a given scribe or monastery happened to possess it. The few MSS that have been demonstrated to have some theological slant are *not* those which most KJVO propaganda tends to label as such, but rather MSS such as Codex Bezae which Epp claimed to have an anti-Judaic bias in some (but not all) of its readings.

    Deborah B: “I have heard of one mss locked up in the Vatican. Is this true, if so, which one?”

    The usual reference is to Codex Vaticanus, otherwise known as B. However, “locked up” is where most ancient MSS happen to be, regardless of library or location. Similarly, also “locked up” in the Vatican library are more than 350 Greek NT MSS, nearly all of which contain the *Byzantine* text as opposed to the Alexandrian text found in Codex Vaticanus.

    So if there is any “conspiracy” in having MSS sealed away in the Vatican Library, it must be more in regard to the Byzantine MSS than anything else, even though every single MS in that library is today publicly accessible (on microfilm).
     
  10. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "look at Israel where every rock has a Catholic temple on it"
    "
    the Catholic presence in Israel is relatively small, the churches on most of those rocks are Orthodox, either Eastern-Orthodox or Oriental-Orthodox.

    "There are majority texts (Byzantine), Textus Receptus (called the received text -- just a name) and Alexandrian texts found in Alexandria"
    "
    The 2 most famous Alexandrian manuscripts certainly weren't found in alexandria, at best they were copied in the neighbourhood of that city.
    The title Textus Receptus originated as a marketing ploy of a printing firm owned by the Dutch family Elsevier. It refers simply to their edition of the Greek New Testament edited together by Erasmus who compared Byzantine texts.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Something I've proposed to some KJVOs, which,as usual, they've remained silent about...

    They make an issue of Tischendorf's having found Sinaiticus in a trash can. COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT GOD WANTED IT THUS FOUND? Could it be that HE wanted it preserved? otherwise, why werent both it and Vaticanus destroyed back in Fred Flintstone's time?
     
  12. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Fred just forgot to take the garbage out, and we are all suffering for his laziness [​IMG]
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maybe Fred just forgot to take the garbage out, and we are all suffering for his laziness

    Or, because his best friend's last name was RUBBLE...
     
Loading...