KJVO Article

DeclareHim's lead-in post: // ... Westcott and Hort assembled
various inferior, less credible manuscripts to produce
a new Greek text that had not previously existed.//

While this is frequently said by KJVO-ists,
it is also true of the 48 translators of the
KJV whose 1611 edition contained their translation.
This assembly was not carefully documented and
we are not real sure we have the same
exact sources they used.

The other KJV editions were NOT made by skilled translators,
but probably by spelling editors.

additional KJVO double standards are documented at:

click here --> Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles <-- click here

 

DeclareHim,

All translations of the New Testament are based either on a single Greek text, or textual information from more than one Greek text. The translators of the King James Version primarily used the third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550. Robert Estienne’s Greek text was mostly compiled from the few Greek texts that were available to him, none of which were 100% complete. Therefore, he had to translate some words from the Latin Vulgate into Greek to have a complete Greek text of the New Testament.

Since 1550, more than 5,000 additional Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the New Testament have been found, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Ever since 1550, scholars have been studying the Greek manuscripts available to them and compiling them into texts of the Greek New Testament. The text published by Westcott and Hort is one of the many of these, and can be found on the Internet. Many others of these texts have been published and can be found in used book stores by either visiting them personally or using the Internet. Most of them are very expensive and hard to find.

In the latter part of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, photocopies of many of the Greek manuscripts became available, and scholars no longer had to travel all over the world to gain access to the information in the manuscripts that are owned by museums and schools all over the planet, and these scholars began to compile Greek texts based on very many Greek manuscripts and found that there were certain traits that were common to many of them, and the manuscripts were classified according to these traits and we now have basically three “families” of manuscripts, the Byzantine Text-Type, the Alexandrian Text-Type, and the Western Text-Type.

The manuscripts used by Robert Estienne belong to the Byzantine Text-Type. The manuscripts that Westcott and Hort and very many other scholars and compilers of the Greek text believed to be the most accurate belong to the Alexandrian Text-Type.

Today, scholars not only have photocopies of thousands the Greek manuscripts, they also have computer data bases that include these manuscripts. 90% or more of scholars of New Testament manuscripts believe that the Alexandrian Text-Type or family of manuscripts is the most accurate. Most of the other scholars of New Testament manuscripts believe that the Byzantine Text-Type or family of manuscripts is the most accurate. Very few believe that the Western Text-Type or family of manuscripts is the most accurate.

Since the KJV New Testament was translated from a text than was compiled from manuscripts belonging to the Byzantine Text-Type, and many 19th and 20th century translations of the New Testament were translated from a text that was compiled mostly from manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian Text-Type, proponents of KJO often attack the translations that are based primarily on the Alexandrian Text-Type. They do this in several ways, including the following:

They list the verses that are not usually found in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts and say that the “modern versions” took them out of the Bible. This is a horrible distortion of the truth, and none of those verses are important to understanding the Bible.

They attack Westcott and Hort personally even though they had virtually nothing to do with any of this. This is slander.

They call late 19th century and 20th and 21st century translations of the Bible New Age translations implying that they were substantially influenced by the New Age movement and philosophy. This is an absolute lie.

They claim that the KJV is the preserved Word of God. This claim is not based on any evidence at all (but a mere, very emotional supposition), and there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Some of the issues here are very complex and it may not be wise for you to argue with your parents or their pastor or others who are KJOists. If you believe, however, that God is leading you to do so, the inaccurate and even false claims of the KJOists are refuted over and over again in threads in this forum, and you can learn for yourself by studying the threads the arguments that are used to refute the claim of KJO.

There is a very good book that would help you to understand the evidence involved in the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian debate. This book presents a strong case for the Byzantine Text-Type, but at the same time presents an even stronger case for the Alexandrian Text-Type. It was not written for 16-year-olds, but I believe that you could handle it just fine. The name of the book is The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. It was written by Harry A. Sturz and published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, Copyright 1984.

[ June 12, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

Amen, Brother Craigbythesea -- Preach it!

Very good essay.
I pray God would give us more good
men who can write sentences,
organize sentences into paragaphs
and make paragrpahs read together into
a logical essay.

 

Thank you, Ed!

Coming from you such comments mean very much to me. Again, thank you!

 

Posted by DeclareHim:

DeclareHim, see this link where Ripliner's arguments are refuted:
Articles on Gail Riplinger

 

Not to worry, Craigbythesea and i are at
loggerheads at rapture timing wrestling ring.

 

Posted by Craig:

To DeclareHim: As a former New Ager, I can doubly affirm this. There is nothing in the modern versions that support the New Age. The very idea is ridiculous. I use the NASB all the time to refute New Age claims about Christ, his mission, God, etc.

DeclareHim, I commend you for your desire to study and refute invalid attacks on the modern versions of the Bible. Keep it up!

 

Actually, the New Age phoneyology draws some of its mantras, buzzwords, & catch phrases from various BVs including the KJV. These include God, Christ, angels, born again, second coming, kingdom of God, and hell. What's perverted is the MEANINGS of these words/phrases.(If I've left out anything, Marcia, please correct me, as I'm "talking" from the top of my head.)

New Age imitates the Bible somewhat, not the other way around.

 

You're right - the New Age uses terms from the Bible but has another meaning for them. I used to quote from the Bible when I wrote articles for magazines as an astrologer, and, ironically enough, it was from the King James because that was the only Bible I had then. I never heard them use "born-again" but some Pagans, as sort of a joke, wear t-shirts that said, "Born Again Pagan."

A Course in Miracles is supposedly the words of Jesus transmitted to the author (who was an atheist psychiatrist) and it talks about the Holy Spirit, Jesus, God, etc. but redefines sin, the HS, etc. This book was big and influenced many New Age writers like Marianne Williamson. I have an article that discusses all this in depth on my site (it's a slight revision of a seminary paper I did for Soteriology). It's about New Age views of sin and salvation. If interested, it's at
GOD IN THE MIRROR: EVIL, SIN, AND SALVATION

New Agers are big on angels. They redefine Christ as one who gained Christ consciousness and/or as "a Christ" and say all of us can become "christs." Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest, teaches this in The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. BTW, Fox's books are sold on christianbook.com, as are many New Age books and authors.

 

Wow, someone read my links! Thanks, DeclareHim!

 

Amen, Sibling DeclareHIm!

Here is part of that good site:
click here --> http://cana.userworld.com/cana_background.html <-- click here