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!

Featured Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Hobie, Feb 27, 2021.

  1. Hobie

    Hobie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    49
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There are many good version such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Geneva Bible, so why do some claim it is the only version Christians should use. The Bible was attacked long before the King James Version ever came about, and if you look in history you find some of the first changes to Canon came out of Alexandria and the Gnostics. Any version coming out or based on these Alexandrian Text of the Alexandrian Codices are corrupted and many are surprised to find the Septuagint is one of these.

    The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitimacy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. Using this idea then it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

    Here is a description given online:

    "At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

    But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

    The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

    Lets see what is verifiable:

    Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

    Looking further, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

    So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitimacy. So again, why...

    This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

    "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

    Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

    In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

    "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

    The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refereing to.
     
    #1 Hobie, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  2. Hobie

    Hobie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    49
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Why would someone do such a evil thing, well they were trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

    The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

    The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism philosophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

    Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (in the modern versions) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. So its not a KJV issue, but a search for the true text of the Textus Receptus versus the Minority Text of the Alexandrian codices. As do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.
     
    #2 Hobie, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  3. Quantrill

    Quantrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    104
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    @Hobie

    I agree. There is no Septuagint. What is called the Septuagint is really nothing but Origen's translation of the Old Testament into Greek.

    And the Alexandrian manuscripts are not, in my opinion, as trustworthy as the Textus Receptus.

    This is why I have always said that the KJV is best and safest.

    Quantrill
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,086
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But NOT the ONLY!
     
  5. Quantrill

    Quantrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    104
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I will say this. Whatever Bible you like and use, you had better buy enough for you and your family now. Because the liberal left and Biden/Harris literary police are going to ban any writings that go against the accepted views of race, and gender. IE, Dr. Seuss.

    I believe they will brand the Bible as full of hate and will edit out those things they don't like so that it is no longer the Bible.

    So, better obtain your Bibles now.

    And, make no mistake, if they are willing to ban the writings you hold dear, it won't be long till they come after you.

    But, you can sit and do nothing and convince yourself that it can't happen here.

    Quantrill
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    323
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    Correction: "... convince yourself that isn't happening here."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,086
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The only bible many of their side would accept still will be the Queen James bible!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What they should use is the KJV but what they do use is what ever new one is available at the time... The Queen James Bible?... Where did you find that one San Francisco?... Brother Glen:eek:
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,086
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Real bible version, came out years ago believe in England, where they took the primary verses used to prove God was against Homosexual/lesbian activities, and retranslated it to make it more acceptable to Him now!
     
  10. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well I'm glad you explained it, no sin is acceptable with God... I follow the Kings English, I don't follow the Queens... Brother Glen:)
     
  11. Quantrill

    Quantrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    104
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Nothing wrong with the KJV. As far as I am concerned it is the best and safest.

    Quantrill
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,086
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Glad that you enjoy it and use it, as most important is to actually use a bible!
     
  13. Quantrill

    Quantrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    104
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Whatever Bible you use, you better buy several of them now.

    Quantrill
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,531
    Likes Received:
    14
    I would have a lot of difficulty reading 1Samuel 25:22; 1Samuel 25:34; 1Kings 14:10; 1Kings 16:11; 1Kings 21:21; and 2Kings 9:8 from the KJV for a public reading.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,086
    Likes Received:
    2,583
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Isn't there a verse in the KJV that uses the actual word "pissing"
     
  16. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    30,323
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes: 2 Kings 18 :: King James Version (KJV)

    I was at a pastors conference one Sat - they were all KJO - and they were joking about this verse because they said it was okay to use that word since it is in the KJV.:(
     
  17. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    30,323
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Faith:
    Baptist
    NKJV: who will eat and drink their own waste with you?”
    ESV who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?”
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    198
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you ignore the fact that the textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus have some readings found in no preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and have a number of readings found in a minority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts? Do you inconsistently accept some minority readings?

    Here is one example of a TR reading in the editions of Beza that is not found in preserved Greek NT manuscripts. According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards F. 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. 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.” Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    198
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Edward Hills listed several renderings in the KJV that Erasmus added to the Traditional Greek text from the Latin Vulgate (KJV Defended, pp. 200-202). Edward Hills listed additions by Erasmus at Matthew 10:8, 27:35, John 3:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5, 6, 20:28, Romans 16:25-27, and Revelation 22:19. Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "Even the Greek text editions of the sixteenth century contained readings that actually originated in the Latin Vulgate rather than in the Greek manuscripts" (Future of the Bible, p. 123). In their second edition’s preface, Maurice Robinson and Willaim Pierpont wrote: “Some early printed editions (usually Textus Receptus) and English translations include words or phrases that are not part of the Byzantine Textform” (The New Testament, p. xx). David Cloud, a KJV-only advocate, claimed that “in a few places there is more testimony to the preserved text in the Latin than the Greek” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 87). David Cloud asserted that “while there were some textual errors in the Latin, the Latin text preserved a few readings that are not preserved in most of the extant Greek manuscripts” (p. 92). David Cloud in effect acknowledged that there are “some major places where the Received Text is not supported by the majority of extant Greek manuscripts” (p. 200). Davod Cloud acknowledged that "some of those [KJV] readings are based more on ancient versions than on Greek texts" (O Timothy, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4).

    How can KJV-only advocates be consistent with their claim that "the text of the majority is the standard text" and accept these additions of Erasmus which are not in the Byzantine text or majority text?
     
  20. Hobie

    Hobie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    49
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    As long as it is a translation/transmission of Gods Word and not a complete rewrite with deletions and corruptions like the Holt and Westcott/NIV version, it is fine.
     
Loading...