Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree

Thanx, Pastor Bob, for posting this!

As I've told the KJVOs many times, one thing not often factored in with their ms studies is THE POWER OF GOD. After all, it's HIS word, which He has presented to all mankind, along with all the different languages.

I believe one aspect of why God has allowed variations within His word is that He wants us to believe by FAITH, and if the Autographs were to still exist, or every ms had been copied perfectly verbatim, then we'd believe by tangible evidence. What we have is God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

I believe that the manuscripts and the translations made from them have come out according to God's will, exactly as He chose.

 

Exactly why many of us have so much confidence that we actually know what the words of God are. Great example of the process of textual criticism in very general terms. The preservation of God is evident in the agreement among the manuscripts and the overwhelming amount of surviving texts.

 

I would disagree with this link. This would be assuming that the 2nd century documents have no errors and are better and more accurate. This is the whole argument for the text that underlines the mv's. The scriptures tell us that the church is the ground and pillar of truth. God's word of truth can and is traced within the churches of God, to which would also mean that more recent manuscript copies are more likely to be the accurate renderings. One also must look at what the church fathers writings had to say. God's word was not lost only to be found in the late 1800's, almost 1900's to be putting man into doubt of what he actually said. Many today are telling us that scriptures were added over the years, in order to justify these errors from the oldest and best manuscripts. This is not so. This would basically be saying believers in the church purposely added to the manuscripts. It is far easier to take away from the word of God by accident in copying, than to add to it. Textual critism in the extreme is heretical in my opinion, and lacks in faith. This is an issue, no christian should ever be doubting in. If it wasn't for these corrupt manuscripts, and the Versions that came from them, none of us would even be debating this issue, nor would anyone doubt that we have the infallible words of God in our language. This is what modern man, gets for having modern wisdom - the wisdom of the world. The end result is doubt. I for one, will not go there and will share with others, otherwise.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes we would be having this debate because irregardless of the accuracy of the underlying original language texts, the KJVO deny any modern translation of the Word of God other than the KJV (though they cannot or will not say which: 1611?-1769?, Cambridge?, Oxford?, Nelson?).

The proof? The KJVO trash the NKJV which is based on the Traditional Texts calling it a "satanic counterfeit" claiming that the editors have lied (in effect) and actually have based their work upon Alexandrian texts.

Incidently, if the NKJV editors wished they could file a lawsuit of fraudulent representation against the individuals making these claims because they have openly and publicly testified in the preface of their Bible that the NKJV New Testament has been based upon the Received Text, which incidently can be easily proven.

In addition, the KJV fails almost every criteria test (internal or external) that the KJVO judge the MV's by (whether eclectic or Traditional Text), whether words omitted/deleted, words added, words mistranslated, inappropriate dynamic equivalence, theology and/or morality of the translators, etc, etc...

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
The proof? The KJVO trash the NKJV which is based on the Traditional Texts calling it a "satanic counterfeit" claiming that the editors have lied (in effect) and actually have based their work upon Alexandrian texts.

--------------------------------------------------

And it has been shown that they do rely upon the Alexandrian readings in some cases, and the fact that they direct the readers attention to these corrupt texts gives the reader the understanding that these corrupt texts are valid. This only causes the reader to doubt. Why do they give credence to such texts? This is subtle deception.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The NKJV is proof that when a KJVOist says that they are TR many KJVOist are telling a lie. The NKJV is closer to what KJVOist call "good" than the KJV. Then KJVOist attack the NKJV?

Many KJVOist should just come out and say that every bible: past and present, under the sun are wrong except the 1769KJV. By making this statement it would be better than flirting with the TR and MT while openly condemning these lines of manuscripts. KJVOist speak with a double tongue.

Honesty is not a KJVO family value. Sorry but that is the truth! I really wish that the producers of the NKJV would file a slander lawsuit
and force these KJVOist to back up their claims! Hit the KJVO in the pocket book! Now that might generate some answers from $$$Ruckman$$$ and $$$Riplinger$$$ LOL!!!!!

 

That is not what the link is talking about, it merely highlights the perpetuation of copyist and other errors through family lines of manuscripts. The key is the high level of agreement when obvious scribal errors are removed. Such as double word errors, misspellings, etc.

The AV translators used textual criticism with the manuscripts they had (which did not all agree, see the marginal and footnotes) and made a highly accurate, very conservative mostly literal translation of the manuscripts in their possession. They did not see the need to than close the door to further redaction if more manuscript evidence could be found. The KJV of today has been improved and corrected from the original. Any translation that uses conservative literal translation techniques, and follows a highly careful process of vetting the textual variants wherever possible has as much claim to the term Holy Bible as the KJV. Scripture affirms this to be true. All the proof texts for the KJVO position can be used to support the validity of other versions as well. If only you understood this you would understand. I believe that the Bible is the Bible and I can hold it in my hand. Why would you question the very Words of God?

 

They didn't give alexandrian readings to 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, these are the Traditional Text belwhethers.

Also, no one now or ever has been able to prove an Alexandrian reading from an extant English text unless a totally different word is in question as to a variant. The NKJV always goes with the Traditional Text (as in 1 Timothy 3:16) with a variant.

Sometimes a word has two similar or close meanings. Just because the NKJV might use an English word that the RSV uses proves nothing especially if the original language word has a dual meaning.

An example:
KJV Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

NKJ Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

The NKJV chose to use the apparent meaning of the context as it is/was uncertain whether Zebedee's mother understood that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh or whether she was simply submitting to Him as one asking a request.

Worship (proskeneo) can have a dual meaning depending on the context worship or beseech depending upon the context

Now the KJVO say that this somehow diminishes the deity of Christ (in spite of the many other uses of the word worship being given to Jesus Christ in the NKJV).

But the use of the word "it" in reference to the Holy spirit (denying His personality as do the JW's), erroneously used in context in the KJV, well that is on the other hand, somehow OK.

Now you are publicly accusing them of deception?

Why did the KJV translators give credence and direct the attention of the reader to the use of the word "him" (men) rather than "them" (words) in the margin of Psalm 12:7?

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. {them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc}

Did the KJV translators use "subtle deception"?

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now you are publicly accusing them of deception?

Why did the KJV translators give credence and direct the attention of the reader to the use of the word "him" (men) rather than "them" (words) in the margin of Psalm 12:7?

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. {them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc}

Did the KJV translators use "subtle deception"?

HankD
--------------------------------------------------


The difference is Hank, that the KJB doesn't have these footnote references today, as they were taken out along time ago. Not to mention, they were the opinions of men in relation to different texts, than those being referred to by the NKJV. The Alexandrian texts are quite different, and should NEVER BE REFERRED TO if they are contrary to what the churches have always known and believed. Anything giving credence to these texts, should be avoided. They are foriegn to the believing churches throughout the generations.


Your litmus test, is quite different than mine.
Changing English words, to different English words that alter the text and pure meaning of the text is also very wrong. Worship should NEVER be indicated as kneeling down. Kneeling down is only PART OF WORSHIP. I can kneel down to a king, but not necessarily be worshipping that king. Kneeling down in and of itself does not denote worship, and in that verse you give as an example WORSHIP is the true meaning of that verse.

You also continue to bring up the word "it" used referring to the Holy Spirit. I am sorry, many have explained this, to which you reject. Why do you reject it? I don't know. Maybe to cling to the false idea that we do not have the word of God perfectly in our language. If we cannot have God's word perfectly in our language, then what do we have to rely upon for our final authority? Each person is left to their own understanding to pick and choose, what is, or is not the word of God. The scriptures are not any man's book, nor are they subject to such criticism. They are the words of the Lord, and if one starts to question the correctness of the words, one can quickly and easily fall into doubt, and making themselves their own judge. God has provided his word of truth to us in our language already. These changes are wrong, in error, and unacceptable, to which sadly, many today are condoning.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I disagree with the NKJV because Michelle quoted:

I agree with Michelle. Worship is strong word than kneeling down. The NKJV weakens the doctrine against this verse.

 

OK give the NKJV the same 200 year chance.

Error is error whether made by gnostic Alexandrians or pado-baptist Anglicans. Several generations of believers and their churches (of whom you have a much closer affinity than the CofE) did not agree with you concerning the King James Bible and loudly proclaimed the Church of England as an antichrist church because of their heretical practises, sacerdotal "bishops", liturgy and baby-sprinkling baptisms along with their corrupted ecclesiastical Bible, saying so at the peril of their life in order that the true Gospel might be preached. Many lost life, limb, family and spent their life in a dungeon for the pure Gospel's sake, eventually fleeing to America.

You are correct with the first part of this last sentence and you can’t prove the second part, it is your own opinion (which by the way I agree with in this case).

It is improper to refer to the Holy Spirit in the English language as an “it”. End of discussion (as far as I am concerned). To be honest, no amount of rationalization or explanation can change my mind. No person in the Trinity should be referred to in the English language as an “it”. This is at very least a sacrilege.

For the same reasons I suppose that you do the very same thing. We explain things to you repeatedly and you reject it.

God , for which we have been maligned for so saying, but as far as the Word of God, I’ll go with the King James translators conviction. This IMO the KJV men got right, the original language texts which has those elusive jots and tittles (and not found in the KJV) that Jesus said would never pass away.

True and you have chosen the KJV, which edition, revision or release I do not know for sure.

Alas, poor King James and his men, they went about doing just that. No sooner had they released two different editions of their Bible, they went about correcting them. Then they lost the original archetype. Poor men, they therefore had to revert back to the original language texts, now we will never know which of the several KJV apographs agree (if any) with the original KJV autograph.

HankD

 

askjo!
Here is something we three agree upon.
I believe she knew at the time who He was and worshipped Him.

HankD

 

Michelle
"If we cannot have God's word perfectly in our language, then what do we have to rely upon for our final authority?"
''
It's obvious you will have to learn Dutch, because my country (ofcourse) has the perfect Bible.

 

Michelle, don't let the comments of many here to alter your belief that the KJV is the Word of God, and that God has proven this by blessing the KJV abundantly over the years.

 

Let's look at some facts:

1. nobody has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is the KJVOist who attacks the Word of God as found in translations other than the KJV(1769?). This is a typical KJVO stall tactic to claim that the KJV is being attacked and not KJVOism. KJVOIsm is a blot on the KJV and it needs to be removed!

2. Nobody has even hinted that God has not blessed the KJV. The KJV is still a wonderful translation, but it is moving towards it's honored place in history just like the Wycliff Bible and Geneva Bible. Am I saying not to use a KJV? Nope, not at all!

3. The NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc are blessed translations as well. Many souls have been won to the Lord by these English translations.

4. If you feel brave then goto my thread and post the scripture to support the KJVO myth.

Thank you.

 

Let's look at some facts:

1. nobody has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is the KJVOist who attacks the Word of God as found in translations other than the KJV(1769?). This is a typical KJVO stall tactic to claim that the KJV is being attacked and not KJVOism. KJVOIsm is a blot on the KJV and it needs to be removed!

2. Nobody has even hinted that God has not blessed the KJV. The KJV is still a wonderful translation, but it is moving towards it's honored place in history just like the Wycliff Bible and Geneva Bible. Am I saying not to use a KJV? Nope, not at all!

3. The NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc are blessed translations as well. Many souls have been won to the Lord by these English translations.

4. If you feel brave then goto my thread and post the scripture to support the KJVO myth.

Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]I see no point in "feeling brave." There is nothing I feel I need to try and prove to you. You are free to use whatever version you desire. I simply wanted to tell michell that there are many who support her position and understand where she is coming from.

 

There is no point because you have no scripture. Prove me wrong....

If all KJVO would become KJV preferred and not slander and lie about other translations, then I would not say one word. When KJVOist slander and attack the Word of the Most High, then I will be quick to point out the errors of the KJVO Camp.

KJVOist like Mitchell give the KJV a bad name when they tag thier liberal modernism known as KJVOism to the beloved KJV!

 

First, it is not my job to prove you wrong.

Second, would you tell me exactly what I have lied about, or are you simply looking for an argument?

Again, let me reiterate, I don't give a rat's behind what translation you use. I will continue to use the KJV.