What is wrong with the modern versions?

Yes, many. But one in particular: what does that phrase in #4 mean????

4. In all these respects they are greatly inferior to the A.V. and those who adopt them lose infinitely more than they gain.

And which TBS are you referring to?

 

1. "Unreliable" is a matter of judgment.

2. "Misleading" is in the eye of the beholder.

3. Whether "ecumenical approval" is a bad thing is subjective opinion.

4. "Inferior" is an assertion, not an argument.

5. The TBS can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

It's not so muc the Bible I have trouble with. It is me trying to follow its instruction. I am not so critical about a translation a person wants to use but much more critical about the fruit and the people they are leading or not leading.

 

And how is that inferior to the "errors of judgment" of a Roman Catholic "textual critic" 500 years ago?

There is far more academic freedom, not to mention information, today than there was in Erasmus' day. There is also more academic criticism and many more people qualified to make critical evaluations.

Maybe, maybe not. Can you find a misleading note? Probably. Is it the general rule? Probably not.

The "traditional text" is both ecumenical and catholic. The canon of scripture was declared by an ecumenical council.

I am likewise concerned with ecumenicalism but guilt by association does not work. It sounds as if the TBS folks don't have alot of faith in God's promises to preserve His Word.

The short answer is "no". Whoever wrote this seems to be operationg on personal assumptions rather than sound reasoning.

 

You just dont get it do you Bob? Your "carbon copy" brand of parroting the people who talked you out of believing the KJB is at an all time low.You KNOW that no Bible or text from Byzantine manuscrips(from the reformation)is not endorsedin any way by the RCC;in fact,they have been banned,and are still on the list of heretical readings.And you also KNOW good and well that the manuscripts the modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES)come from did in fact contain(and still does) the Apocryphal books.


When are you going to learn that your "brand" of aping others will not shake the Bible(KJB) believers faith????

 

Yeah,yeah..Problem is that they are "Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of truth."

 

Here are some interesting articles for the pro- KJV people:

http://www.seekgod.ca/ghostsociety.htm

http://www.SeekGod.ca/topicbible.htm

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

Problem is that they are "Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of truth."

We could change that if the KJV-onlyists would quit interrupting and let us work in peace.

Ever heard the proverb, "Children should be seen and not heard"?

 

Erasmus' original work was endorsed by the Pope. This is a verifiable, historical fact.

After doing some research, I challenged this claim before and have yet to see KJVO's answer. Please cite a source that says the RCC banned Erasmus' Greek text.

He was a thorn in their sides because he railed against abuses. Some of those writings may have been condemned. However, finding a place that says some of his opinions were banned is a universe away from saying they banned all of his work.

 

Spirit and Truth said:

Here are some interesting articles for the pro- KJV people:

http://www.seekgod.ca/ghostsociety.htm

Paging BrianT, please pick up the white courtesy phone, there is a message for you from "the other side" . . .

No wonder KJV-onlyists are so clueless. They keep feeding each other the same tall tales over and over again.

The club that Westcott founded at Oxford was called the "Ghostly Guild," not the "Ghost Society." That in itself is not exactly a damning condemnation of this article, but it does demonstrate a certain level of incompetence.

More serious is that this article fails to point out that Westcott lost interest in the subject not long after. It just leaves you hanging, under the false assumption that he continued with this paranormal interest for the rest of his life.

 

I have frequently thought that about KJVO's that seem to fill their heads with ill-founded arguments and downright falsehoods which cannot stand scrutiny. About as often as not, when these foolish arguments are exposed, KJVO's appeal to "faith". But then they cannot even answer the fundamental question, "Faith in what?" The Bible certainly doesn't teach KJVOnlyism.

The source of your "faith" and your error is the false teachers you have trusted.

 

I find the KJV-only presentation of W&H being part of the Ghostlie Guild very interesting. It was founded to "conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural", but KJV-only supporters are never able to provide more info, provide any details of activities, beliefs, etc - somehow this is supposed to be damning in some way. W&H are occultists for inquiry and investigation? Sounds like KJV-only supporters would also accuse policemen of rape and murder because they do inquiry and investigation about rapes and murders.

I wish I could be more specific, but the complete lack of evidence (quotes, references, page numbers, etc.) make it impossible to be more specific. In other words, "where's the beef?" Well, when they don't have any actual evidence of anything, at least there's always assumption and slander, eh?

 

They depend too heavily upon Aleph and B (and a few other uncials) for variant choices based upon the unproven hypothesis of Wescott and Hort that the older and shorter reading is best.

P66 has shown that readings hitherto assigned as "conflated" and/or "scribal additions" exist in this manuscript (P66) which is older than either Aleph or B.

What is good about the MVs is that where they are faithful to the Traditional Text (the vast majority), they are in modern English grammar and sytntax, they do not have a "churchianity" ring to them. Jesus spoke to the common folks "And the common people heard him gladly".

It's not as if the two families of texts are as different as Grimm's Fairy Tales and Alice in Wonderland. After the obvious (spelling differences, dialect differences, homeoteleuton, etc) synonyms and word order are harmonized there is a very small portion of collective additions, deletions (2 percent of word bulk maybe).

These remaining areas can be determined through other sources such as early fathers writings, early translations, lexicons, etc.

My own personal evaluation is that Aleph and B (and a few other uncials) are not reliable even when compared to each other. They have their origin in the Church of North Africa which was renown for their heresy and error (Athanasius excepted).

If you read the blubs I posted you will get a little glimps into the "messiness" of these manuscripts. Burgon (and others) who traveled all over Europe to see them first-hand) elaborates in his books concerning the poor quality and workmanship of the Alexandrian scribes (whose native tongue was not Greek) and how that these texts are peppered with scribal corrections, erasures and mutilations far beyond the Byzantine texts. Of course some say that this is their strength (the "hen-scratching").

Personally I put my trust in the Traditionl Text which the Church affirmed and used until 1881.

Granted, there are different names for the several TR's (3 or 4) that represent this text. Each collator made his own choices among the hundreds or thousands of manuscript copies.
About 20 completed NT) were finally selected as the best representatives.
The end result were the three which were nearly identical (pre-1611).

The KJV translators used these three plus other translations including (gasp!) the Latin Vulgate.

Today we have the Scrivener's Greek Text with no textual apparatus which is a distillation of the Greek texts which underlies the KJV English text, for me, this is the inspired inerrant text.

If further historical discoveries of significance unearth differences, FWIW, I would have to rethink my decision and then perhaps would be willing to entertain an amendment (if anyone asked me but I'm sure no one would).

Through blathering.

HankD

 

HankD:

Today we have the Scrivener's Greek Text with no textual apparatus which is a distillation of the Greek texts which underlies the KJV English text, for me, this is the inspired inerrant text.

S&T:

Thanks for the tip Hank. Where can I pick up a copy of this?

 

http://www.tbs-sales.org

At the bottom of the page click on: Original Biblical Languages (underlined).

HankD

 

Thanks for posting the information Hank. When I clicked on the link, I realizd that I have an interlinear that uses that text.

 

As far as memory serves me Scrivener used the “big three” Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza which collectively differ in perhaps less than 300 places. Elzivir coming after the 1611 KJB. He followed the Vulgate in Greek where the KJ translators used the Latin text.

I believe Stephanus was the predominate text.

He picked from these to match the KJV English text and thus the 1894/5 Scrivener Greek New Testament.

The edition I purchased from the TBS has no textual apparatus. Probably because there is no need for one being a text which reflects the English text of the 1769 KJB.

Please note that I said “for me” this is the inerrant text. I treat it as such but as I said, if historical evidences accumulate concerning the apparent need for a correction then so be it.

Obviously my definition of “perfect” and “inerrant” in relation to the reconstructed Greek text is different than that of the radical KJVO. In my view (traditional), only the original autographs are “perfect” and without error in the ultimo.

I can give the label of “virtual” perfection to copies and/or reconstructions such as the Scrivener’s text. I will admit that this is a subjective and prejudicial decision (with faith as an added ingredient).

To me, Scrivener’s text represents 1800 plus years of refinements of the Greek New Testament rooted in the apostolic church.

Also, I respect the decision of other faithful believers who have a different view (including the KJVO, but of course they are wrong about the “inspiration” of the translated English words of the text). Personally I feel a much closer kinship to those who adhere to the W&H theories than the radical KJVO.

HankD