TRUTH and versions

for example?
(be sure to include examples from 'each side')

 

Since the examples of dishonesty will undoubtedly abound against the TR crowd, I'll present one against the CT crowd.

The footnotes in the MVs often contain phrases like, "Some of the oldest manuscripts read..." The dishonesty is in the fact that, many times, it is only two (Aleph & B) and many times it is just one of these two.

 

Citation above sez:

Correct Format that I learned in every school I ever went two except
Elk City, Oklahoma, Grammer School (grades 1-4):

The New King James Version in the
Great Tradition (Publishers-name, date of copyright)
by Arthur Farstad - pg. 112-113

Now days, since the ISBN is put on all printed books this is even
Better:

The New King James Version in the
Great Tradition (Publishers-name, date of copyright, ISBN)
by Arthur Farstad - pg. 112-113.

This full information is helpful when somebody wants to obtain
the source and check it out.

BTW, it is not the truth if you got the quote from anybody but
the cited source. Secondary sources also need to be
documented in like manner as primary sources.

 

I'll present some from the anti-KJVO side.

The whole foundation of KJVO is rife with dishonesty. J. J. Ray(possibly a pseudonym) copies from Wilkinson. Fuller copies from Ray and Wilkinson.( So did Ruckman, but at least he was HONEST about it!) Many others copy from Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller. Riplinger deliberately misquotes other authors.

How can anything with such a groddy foundation be from GOD? Anything from HIM uses FACTS & not guesswork and imagination.

To be fair, here are a coupla false Freedom Reader allegations.

1.) King James was gay. This false allegation was begun by a man surnamed Weldon, some 25 years after KJ's death. he'd been banished from KJ's court & had sworn revenge. It's moot anyway, as KJ had very little to do with the making of the AV; he rubber-stamped everything for which the translation committee asked his permission.

2.) The KJV alleges that turtles sing. (Song of Solomon 2:12) In 1611, "turtle" was often used as a shortcut for turtle DOVES, which certainly DO sing. Any English reader should know the bird from the reptile by the context. Shoot, I aint heard even the teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles sing too much!

 

Let me first state that I am KJVO, however I am well aware that the adherents to my side of the issue have made (in their zeal...no excuse) some extremely ridiculous claims.

However, the MV side of the issue is not without its serious faults as well.

The KJVO sides ridiculous claims...

- Purified 7 times
- 7 letter "Saviour"
- Double inspiration
- KJV is the standard for all languages
- jot and tittle
- Modern scholarship is evil
- and more...

The MV sides ridiculous claims...

- Older or oldest is best
- translations of words are "wrong" just because we don't use them that way any more. (example: Easter, slew, charity)
- False claims that the "choice" manuscripts are the "most reliable"
- KJV is antiquated and of little value any more
- KJV revisions are new translations
- Modern Scholarship is superior to that of the KJ translators
- and more...

These are just a few from each side, there are many more.

Just a few thoughts to get it going,

Max

 

So what is dishonest about saying "some" as long as more than one example can be found? "Some" merely indicates more than one - it doesn't indicate a majority or a totality. If "some" people were on a bus the number is not specified - it could be 2 people or the bus could be full or anywhere in between.

If someone claims the majority of manuscripts have a certain reading when in fact only 2 manuscripts have that reading, then the person making the claim is lying - he or she intends to deliberately mislead others into accepting a certain reading. This doesn't seem to be the case at all when a version's footnotes indicate "some" manuscripts have a certain reading. No one is trying to over-state their case if "some" is used.

 

"some" (though technically only requires more than one) seems to be a misleading and gross overstatement when the manuscript evidence is say 2 versus 200.

Max

 

I apologize Ed. Just in case Arthur Farstad has more than one book entitled The New King James in the Great Tradition, I'll provide the requested information below:

The New King James Version in the Great Tradition
Thomas Nelson Publishers - Nashville (Tennessee I assume, although it doesn't say specifically)
Copyright 1989 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Second Edition Copyright 1993 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
ISBN 0-8407-3148-5
by Arthur Farstad - Forward by R.K. Harrison
pg. 112-113

If further information can be a benefit to you Mr. Edwards, please let me know. I am prepared to offer information relative to the author's acknowledgments on page v, as well as "contents" information on page vii.

 

Would you consider it dishonest for a church member to approach the Pastor and say, "Pastor, some people are pretty upset about the decision you made about the church parking lot," when in reality it was just this man and his wife who are upset?

To use the term "some" in this context or in the mss context is very misleading and dishonest in my opinion.

 

Another bit of dishonesty from the CT side of the argument is that the Textus Receptus was complied using only a few recent manuscripts while the W/H Text was compiled using a multitude of early manuscripts.

Note: Rev. Miller is a not KJVO; he merely presents the facts of the issue.

 

I am going to have to step in here. Though both sides have been relatively polite so far, this thread has far too much potential of being inflammatory.

I am going to close it at the end of page 5, if it survives that long.

This is NOT a response to ANY post or poseter - I just know the potential of a thread like this.

 

You guys are blowing the use of "some" into something it isn't - something dishonest. In the case of someone trying to make someone else believe that all or a majority of people/texts have one thing in common when this isn't the case is truly dishonest. However, as long as "some" is not intended to convey all or a majority there is nothing dishonest or deceitful about its use. Pastor Bob, if that church member indicated the whole congregation or the majority of the congregation didn't like something, then he would be dishonest. Otherwise "some" is not at all dishonest. You're making an issue of a non-issue, or a mountain out of a mole hill, guys.

 

That is just the issue my friend; it is very much implied that "some" refers to the majority. At the least it is implied that "some" refers to more than "two." Otherwise, why not just say "two" as does the NIV?

 

Pastor_Bob, in post #11: //First Edition - 1937
...
No ISBN# (Sorry Ed)//

That is self explanatory. Listing the ISBN
didn't start until 1982-1988, or somewhere along
in there - whenever we decided to put the
MOB (mark of the beast, it's a joke folks )
on books.

 

I second that. Amen!

 

Frequently omitted things I've noted:

1. 'KJVs is frequently more correct than 'KJV'


2. TRs is frequently more correct than 'TR'

 

This is a tremendous example of dishonesty (not Ed specifically, but the concept). Some would have us to believe that there are multiple versions of the King James Version. There are no subsequent "versions" of the AV 1611, merely necessary revisions or editions. When I go to church tonight, I will be carrying my 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. The text was never re-translated in order to form a new version. The English text was merely corrected and updated as necessary in subsequent editions.

 

Pastor_Bob: //There are no subsequent "versions" of the AV 1611,
merely necessary revisions or editions. When I go
to church tonight, I will be carrying
my 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.//

How often have you been asked to explain why the 'U' and 'V'
are backwards in the KJV1611 Edition? Why is the KJV1873
Edition NOT accepted by 98% of the 'don't make up
rules for me' Independant Fundamental Baptists (IFBs)?