God's word

[Ed Edwards]

Homebound: "Cross references are good, don't get me wrong,
but I hate the way Scofield likes to subsitute words and
then says somethings about this not being in some MSS."

Bad case of Michelle Syndrome.
The Michelle Syndorme is this: I read only the KJB (which I
call the KJV1769) and nothing else, it is the Bible.
Anyway,it seems like such posts as the following,
most people don't read it. And most people that read it don't
understand.

Here are the various types of footnotes in the Schofiled Bible:

1. Schofields notes (the lengthy ones), his idea of what the verse means
2. Cross references to similiar scriptures (other Bible addresses)
3. Translator footnotes.

There seem to be basicly three kinds of translator footnotes:

A. "Or." - second best translations
B. "Heb." - Hebrew source variations
C. "Gk." - Greek source variants.

Yes, there are variations in the sources. Even the
Textus Receptus has variations. IN fact, the original KJV1611
sidenotes show 37 Greek source variants in the Textus Receptus.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
How can you read the 39 Articles of Religion of 1577 and claim the KJV translators have a "doctrinal inclination" to include the Apocrypha?

While the 39 Articles were their core doctrine and authoritative, they were not the sum total of what they believed. You know that there remained strong RCC ties and influence with many of the 17th century Anglicans.

Baptists and other non-Anglicans protested the inclusion of the Apocrypha and continued to use the Geneva. The CoE responded by making it illegal to print a Bible without the Apocrypha... seems like a fairly rash action for texts that had no authority.

I see. So, I cannot correct your errors nor try to teach you something, for you already know everything there is to know about everything?

Feel free when I have actually made an error. I have learned from you on occasions and have no delusions about knowing everything.

I think it was you a few threads back that was chastising others for making emotional statements. Was this insult objective or meant to be edifying? Or, was it meant to put me in my place?

You can think I am wrong if you wish. If I am convinced I will admit it. But all you have done in this thread is split hairs in a condescending manner.

The fact remains, the KJV era Anglicans considered the Apocrypha (canonical or not) to be important enough to write its inclusion into their law. MV committees did nothing closely approaching this level of respect for the Apocrypha.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You also know that these translation committees had no denominational nor doctrinal inclination to include the Apocrypha like the KJV translators did.

Then WHY did those translators choose to ditch the Syrian/Byzantine Texts of the Reformation for the Egyptian/Jesuit mss of the dark-ages,that INCLUDES the Apocrypha in both testaments as Holy writ?? </font>[/QUOTE]Your statement assumes that only Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were used for the MV's. If this were true you still wouldn't have a valid point since the KJV used the Latin Vulgate which contained the Apocrypha as scripture as a source text.

The fact is the MV's use a very wide range of texts and evidences to determine readings so your false blather is nothing but that.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

Five examples of places where the KJV abandons the actual wording of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the kethib) and follows the reading of the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the qere):

(1) Jud. 16:26, where the actual Hebrew text reads "touch the pillars," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "feel the pillars."

(2) 1 Kg. 22:48, where the actual Hebrew text reads "Jehoshaphat had ten ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."

(3) 2 Kg. 20:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the city," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the middle court."

(4) Isa. 10:32, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the mount of the daughter of Zion."

(5) Isa. 65:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "pieces of," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "broth of."

Apparently the KJV translators thought that the marginal notes were Scripture sometimes.

I don't quite understand these sidenotes. Where were they in the Bible? Meaning, when where they inserted in the Bible? Where they printed with the Bible? As you can see, I don't know much about these sidenotes, so I cannot answer or refute your comment. </font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew Masoretic text contains hundreds of "qere/kethib" variants. The Masoretes who standardized and copied the Hebrew text were reluctant to make any changes in the text they received even where they thought there were errors, so they let the text as it was written (the "kethib") stand, but made their corrections which were to be read (the "qere") in the margin. In each of the five examples I gave, the KJV follows the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text rather than the actual words of the Hebrew Masoretic text itself. That the KJV translators were aware of the differences is illustrated by the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV -- the note beside 1 Kg. 22:48 reads, "made...: or, had ten ships;" that the note beside 2 Kg. 20:4 reads, "court: or, city;" and that the note beside Isa. 65:4 reads "broth: or, pieces."

Bottom line: the KJV translators thought that many of the marginal notes in the Hebrew text were Scripture.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.

One reason why we don't re-write Shakespeare's writings because they were originally written in English -- unlike the text of the Bible, which was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and needs to be translated into English. </font>[/QUOTE]Which was done in 1611. Why the need for another? </font>[/QUOTE]Because people in the 21st century need a translation of the Bible in 21st century English, not 17th century English.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Your statement assumes that only Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were used for the MV's.

I know others were used;birds of a feather.(Matt 7:20).

If this were true you still wouldn't have a valid point since the KJV used the Latin Vulgate which contained the Apocrypha as scripture as a source text.

On the contrary,the "borrowed" part from the Vulgate came from the Old Latin,which came from the Syrian/Byzantine MSS.

Jerome HAD to borrow those verses from the O-L because his pet mss--Vaticanus(Rev 17)--did not even HAVE THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN IT;this is a proven fact and trying to prove otherwise is just slipshod nonsense on your part.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

...the "borrowed" part from the Vulgate came from the Old Latin,which came from the Syrian/Byzantine MSS.

Incorrect, since there *was* no "Syrian/Byzantine" text before the 4th C. Furthermore, the Old Latin texts contained large numbers of additions.

Jerome HAD to borrow those verses from the O-L because his pet mss--Vaticanus(Rev 17)--did not even HAVE THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN IT;this is a proven fact and trying to prove otherwise is just slipshod nonsense on your part.

It's highly likely that Vaticanus originally had Revelation. However, Vaticanus is missing portions from the beginning (up to Gen. 46:28) and the end (from Heb. 9:14 on, which included 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation), which is precisely where we would expect a well-used manuscript to show signs of wear and tear.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
Because people in the 21st century need a translation of the Bible in 21st century English, not 17th century English.

No they don't, I don't and I know of many others that di not. As I said before, people are trying to seek what God is telling them without going through the blood of Jesus. The only reason for those that are saved and don't understand the Bible is pure laziness. They would rather pick up another version to see if what they just read really means what it said. This is the human way, if you have a opinion about something, you will find someone to agree with you.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Incorrect, since there *was* no "Syrian/Byzantine" text before the 4th C. Furthermore, the Old Latin texts contained large numbers of additions.

There was no TR until AFTER the KJB was first printed,Sinaiticus was unknown until Tischendorf went dumpster-diving in 1844-1859,Vaticanus was not named Vaticanus until Rome(Rev 17) adopted it as their own.Just because it was NAMED later does not mean it never existed.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I write software requirements for imbedded
computers in my job. I use 21st century
termonology because 21st century people
will be filling my requirements with
working computer programs.

I think God is smart enough to preserve
His Holy Written Word AND have it written
in a language people can understand.

Homebound: "Do we have God's perfect word today? If yes, what is it? If no, why not?"

Yes, we have God's perfect Living Word
today: our blessed Lord and Savior:
Messiah Iesus*

(sorry, couldn't resist the KJV1611 edition
spelling of Jesus, they used no "J" in
the KJV1611)

The perfect written word of God can be
found today in the Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB, 2003). An added
bonus, it is written in the language
that i speak: 21st century English.

Homebound: "Also, I really don't understand
how you can believe that thiere is
more than one perfect BGible, especially
when they all say something different."

They do NOT all say somehting different.
All the MVs say what God wants us to know
in different words.

BTW, have you personally determined the various
English versions "all say something different".

I've noticed you saying "I didn't know that"
several times lately. This may show that
you are depending upon your opinion of
various English versions from the opinions
of others, not your own. I've also noticed
that most teachers of ONE BIBLE ONLY know
the things you say you didn't know BUT
decline to share them, lest they loose their
hold on thier subjects/victims.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I've noticed you saying "I didn't know that"
several times lately. This may show that
you are depending upon your opinion of
various English versions from the opinions
of others, not your own. I've also noticed
that most teachers of ONE BIBLE ONLY know
the things you say you didn't know BUT
decline to share them, lest they loose their
hold on thier subjects/victims.

My opinion on the various English versions is this, they will never be the bible the King James Bible is. I have not read or even looked at all the versions out there, but I just about guarantee you they are different than the KJB.

 

[HankD]

I'm sorry to disappoint you brother,

Not disappointed at all. Just the opposite.

They would rather pick up another version to see if what they just read really means what it said.

Or to figure out or clarify what it says. This the KJV translators agreed with to find the "sense" of the Scriptures.

This is the human way, if you have a opinion about something, you will find someone to agree with you.

You are correct this is the human way, illustrated by the followings of Ruckman and Riplinger.

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

As I said before, people are trying to seek what God is telling them without going through the blood of Jesus.

The version one uses has nothign to do with trying to seek what God is telling them without going through the blood of of Jesus (whatever that means). Using MVs has to do with the clear communication of God's word.

The only reason for those that are saved and don't understand the Bible is pure laziness.

Not actually. I was in Brazil for a while. My problem understanding teh Portuguese Bible had nothing to do with laziness. It had to do with understanding the language. This statement of yours is patently false.

They would rather pick up another version to see if what they just read really means what it said.

Or perhaps to see what it really says. There is no reason that reading the Scripture should be hard or confusing. The doctrine is hard enough (as Peter says). We don't need to add an unused language to it.

This is the human way, if you have a opinion about something, you will find someone to agree with you

Which is why we constantly see references to often refuted KJVOs on this board. People don't care about the truth of the matter. They simply want someone who will agree with them.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Incorrect, since there *was* no "Syrian/Byzantine" text before the 4th C. Furthermore, the Old Latin texts contained large numbers of additions.

There was no TR until AFTER the KJB was first printed,Sinaiticus was unknown until Tischendorf went dumpster-diving in 1844-1859,Vaticanus was not named Vaticanus until Rome(Rev 17) adopted it as their own.Just because it was NAMED later does not mean it never existed. </font>[/QUOTE]You are missing the point. There's not a single shred of evidence that the text type now called the "Byzantine text" existed prior to the early 4th C., nor is there a single shred of evidence that the text now called the "Textus Receptus" existed before Erasmus created it in 1516. However, there's plenty of evidence that the Old Latin (with all its many additions) existed as far back as c. 250 A.D. And these Old Latin sources display a text that is *very* different from the Byzantine text which emerged later!

 

[HankD]

There's not a single shred of evidence that the text type now called the "Byzantine text" existed prior to the early 4th C.,

Archangel, couldn't we say that p66 is a "shred" or at least an "inkling" of just such evidence?

It has a mixed text type with a goodly portion of so called "conflated" readings pre-dating Aleph and B.

HankD

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

The only reason for those that are saved and don't understand the Bible is pure laziness.

I could say the same thing about people who don't understand the Greek NT.

They would rather pick up another version to see if what they just read really means what it said.

No, they would rather pick up an English Bible translation that they can read without having to consult a dictionary of archaic English in order to understand it. Show this passage to typical English speaking people in the 21st C., and the probable reaction will be puzzled looks:

"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." (2 Cor. 6:11-13, KJV)

Now show them the same passage from a modern English translation like the NIV, and they'll understand it:

"We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also." (2 Cor. 6:11-13, NIV)

The Bible is meant to be read and understood by ordinary people. It's that simple.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HankD:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There's not a single shred of evidence that the text type now called the "Byzantine text" existed prior to the early 4th C.,

Archangel, couldn't we say that p66 is a "shred" or at least an "inkling" of just such evidence?

It has a mixed text type with a goodly portion of so called "conflated" readings pre-dating Aleph and B.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, no. P66 has a handful of distinctively Byzantine *readings*, but certainly not an overall Byzantine *text*.

 

[skanwmatos]

There is no such thing as an "overall Byzantine" text. All texts contain variants. To dismiss the ancient Byzantine readings is a poor and unscholarly reaction to protect a position you have taken dogmatically and expressed authoritatively. You have to dismiss all evidence of a pre-4th century Byzantine textform because you have already stated it did not exist before the 4th century and, therefore, as it did not exist you must dismiss the evidence supporting it.

Not all early manuscripts favor the Alexandrian text, and few are purely Alexandrian in character.

Over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers.[See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230.]

There never has been a shred of evidence that an "authorized revision" of the Greek New Testament text ever occurred, and the Greek church itself has never claimed such. (Hort maintained that, apart from such formally-authorized revision, there would be no way possible to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform).[See John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics rep. ea., n. d. [1883]), pp. 276-294; Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, pp. 157-159, 164-169.]

 

[Trotter]

HomeBound wrote:
No they don't, I don't and I know of many others that di not.

Thanks for your opinion. Now here's mine.

I do not use 17th century venacular in my vocabulary. The people to whom I teach and/or preach to do not use 17th century English in their vocabulary, either. Not everyone sitting in the classroom/pew has a dictionary handy for the archaic, outdated words that the KJV throws around like old luggage.

You don't need a new translation written in the language of the times? Fine. But many of us do want/need one. There are others who don't want one either? Fine, they don't have to use one.

As I said before, people are trying to seek what God is telling them without going through the blood of Jesus.

The only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. Period.

It is through His finished work on Calvary that we may have eternal life through faith in Him. I have yet to find a modern translation (outside of editions of the New World Translation and the like) that denies this.

Again, one of the petently false dogmatic claims of the KJVO sect.

The only reason for those that are saved and don't understand the Bible is pure laziness.

So, what are you trying to say? Those of us who prefer to not use the KJV are plain lazy, or are we unsaved? Choose your words carefully...

When I am reading God's word, I want to read His word. Not His word and a dictionary to explain what all the clunky archaisms mean. A modern translation provides exactly what I want, and need.

They would rather pick up another version to see if what they just read really means what it said.

No, they would rather pick up another version to be able to read with understanding.

Believe it or not, most Americans haev not been raised and weaned on the KJV. Most have never been part of a church. The youth of today are spiritually bankrupt because their parent left the church in droves twenty, thirty years ago, never looking back. And almost none of them have ever read the KJV, and would simply walk away from the ancient venacular of it.

This is the human way, if you have a opinion about something, you will find someone to agree with you.

While this statement is true, the context of it makes it false. Man does look for that which agrees with him. But the word of God agrees with God, not man.

True, there are some translations (and I use that term loosely) that plays fast and loose with the task of translation. But not all of them. Most of the translations that have come onto the scene in the past 100 years have been truthful attempts to render what the manuscripts actually say.

It does not matter what your opinion is, because if you look hard enough you can find proof texts in ANY translation to back you up. Doesn't matter if what you think is right or wrong, because by taking a verse out of context and applying the right spin, you can make the bible say anything.

Sad, but true.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

There is no such thing as an "overall Byzantine" text. All texts contain variants.

Actually, there is such a thing as an "overall Byzantine text." Any manuscript containing a significantly high percentage of characteristically Byzantine readings has an "overall Byzantine text," despite any minor variations.

To dismiss the ancient Byzantine readings is a poor and unscholarly reaction to protect a position you have taken dogmatically and expressed authoritatively. You have to dismiss all evidence of a pre-4th century Byzantine textform because you have already stated it did not exist before the 4th century and, therefore, as it did not exist you must dismiss the evidence supporting it.

Proper methodology demands that we make a distinction between isolated individual *readings* and the overall pattern of readings characteristic of a *text type*. Why? Because there's a huge difference between two documents which share a handful of similar *readings* and two documents which are of the same *text type*. For example, KJV and NIV both have identical readings in Mt. 5:3, Jn. 1:1, Jn. 11:35, 1 Cor. 13:9, 1 Cor. 15:43-44a, and Eph. 6:1. However, it would be methodologically unsound to conclude on this basis that the KJV and NIV share the same overall text type, or that the NIV as a whole existed back in 1611. Similarly, the existence of a handful or Byzantine *readings* in an early manuscript of otherwise non-Byzantine character doesn't permit us to conclude that the Byzantine text as a whole existed at that time. What would establish the early existence of the Byzantine text is a manuscript with an overall Byzantine character -- and there simply *are* no such manuscripts before the 4th C.

Not all early manuscripts favor the Alexandrian text, and few are purely Alexandrian in character.

Agreed. However, such early manuscripts we do have show a *far* closer affinity with the Alexandrian and Western text types than with the Byzantine text type. In fact, the Byzantine text type is the only one *not* represented in the pre-4th C. sources.

Over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers.[See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230.]

Sturz' study is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, the majority of the readings in his list are *not* "distinctively Byzantine" as he claims -- e.g., the reading "exestesan" at Mk. 5:42, which is listed as "distinctively Byzantine" even though it is supported by the majority of Latin manuscripts which have a "Western" text type. By my count, all but eighteen of Sturz' so-called "distinctively Byzantine" readings are attested in non-Byzantine sources. Secondly, as has already been noted, the existence of *some* ancient distinctively Byzantine *readings* does not establish the existence of an ancient Byzantine *text type* as a whole.

There never has been a shred of evidence that an "authorized revision" of the Greek New Testament text ever occurred, and the Greek church itself has never claimed such. (Hort maintained that, apart from such formally-authorized revision, there would be no way possible to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform).[See John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics rep. ea., n. d. [1883]), pp. 276-294; Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, pp. 157-159, 164-169.]

There is some historical evidence to support the creation and dissemination of an early form of what would eventually become the standard Byzantine text, although the evidence is circumstantial. We have the text of a letter from Constantine to Eusebius ordering the creation of fifty copies of the Scriptures for use in churches thoughout the empire. We also have Jerome's statement that Lucian of Antioch created a revised the text of the NT that some considered authoritative. If Lucian's text were the basis for Constantine's fifty Bibles, it would explain how a Greek text created in the 4th C. rapidly came to prominence.