Where do you say the modern versions come from?

Amen.

Because of the suffering of the forefathers in the faith,
I hesitate to dis their translation.

 

Note this blaring corruption from the pen of Origen included in the KJV: :smilewinkgrin:
Interestingly it is even included in Westcott and Hort’s GNT.

Origen, in his commentary on John writes:

The earliest witness to this verse is dated to around A.D. 200

τον ϊμαντα του ϋποδηματος [FONT=&quot]28[/FONT] αυ[του
ταυτα εγενετο εν βηθανια {Bethany}περαν το[υ
ϊορδανου οπου ην ο ϊωαννης βα
πτιζων· [John 1:28 - P66]

*[̠[FONT=&quot]Indicates conjectural reconstruction of the ending of a line where letters or words most likely would have been in the original manuscript.

Was Origen correct????

Rob
[/FONT]

 

His usual response is "You have no final authority." Never mind that hasta have a second authority to tell him what his final authority is.

 

And so do WE...but without trying to LIMIT GOD to just those translators WE like.

 

AVBunyan:Why don't some of you read the works I mentioned if you are sincere about finding truth. Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

I toldja...I HAVE. And I've read ALL of Burgon's stuff, not just the parts the KJVOs like. Apparently, YOU have NOT read all that Burgon hadta say, including his opinion that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision.

Hills...Party-Line KJVO, followed in Wilkinson's footsteps

Ruckman....Useta write for the "Tom Corbett...Space Cadet" show and "Mad" magazine, now worx for Nintendo making space shooter videogames

Some of you are quick to condemn these men's works. Where are your research papers? All I've seen from some of you are short posts on forums.

Apparently, you've not read Rucky's tale of the ten-foot-tall alien Antichrist with huge black lips whom he says will land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mount of Olives & will impart his "mark" with a kiss from those lips. Read all about it in Rucky's book Mark Of The Beast.

Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

This is ithe point of my thread here.

What does it matter?

Also Scott regarding your opinion of bro. Will - I completely disagree.
Untill you have put 1/8 as much work regarding your research out for public viewing as bro. Will has I believe you should show more reservation in regards to such statements.


"Bro" Will is more fulla wrong answers than a panel on "Celebrity Jeopardy". HE EVEN ADMITS TO GUESSWORK! Mucha Will's "research' is the product of his imagination. I have proven mucha his stuff wrong on other boards. When thus beaten, he leaves that board, as he's apparently done here, where the opposition to his goofy ideas isn't limited to just me.

God bless

Same to ya! Have a nice evening, despite your crushing defeat on this forum.

 

I had 2 ops to correct nerve damage sustained from throwing too many baseballs in too little time. Now, at age 58, I'm pitching batting practice to Senior leaguers.Also, I had my R arm sucked into an 8" hose on a Super Sucker truck(an industrial vacuum cleaner) with no ill effects. BE SURE TO EXERCISE THAT ARM/WRIST AS MUCH AS YOUR DOC WILL ALLOW, as well as follow Ed's advice.

Hope it improves very soon!

 

AVBunyan: //Question - are the modeern versions based
upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works
in Alexandria or not? //

Not!

I find little evidence that Origen's contributed to Bible history
in any way, negative or positive.

I do find lots of literature that constitue a modern type
CONSPIRACY THEORY using 3rd Century (201-300)
data. Quite frankly, these conspiracy theories are easy
to disprove using the literature existing prior to the 19th
Century (1801-1900).

I really find it disgraceful to make up third centruy untruths
attempting to deceive 21st century (2001-2100) people

BTW, Both the KJV and modern versions are translated
from the available sources AT THE TIME OF TRANSLATION.
The KJV translators used higher criticism to determine
which of their sources to use as the primary translation
and which sources to use as the secondary translation.
These decisions are documented by the KJV translators in
the Translator Sidenotes*.

*Caveat, it is easy to tell the difference between
the Translator Sidenotes and other types of sidenotes.
Other types of margin notes include:
1. Cross-reference notes pointing to other sciptures
2. Comentary notes giving what somebody things
the scripture means.

Unfortunately, there is a modern conspiracy afoot to
deprive people of the translator footnotes. Recall that
the translator footnotes show the higher criticism used
by the translators. Recall that it is a DOUBLE STANDARD
to say that the KJV Translators didn't use Higher Criticism
and the MV translators did use Higher Criticism.
Both the KJV Translators and MV translators used Higher
Criticism and the availble source materials.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not certain mss came from Alexandria or Slobbovia...What matters is whether they're valid or not.

Just because they DIFFER doesn't mean one is corrupt & the other isn't. After all, every "family" of mss contains differing narrations of the same events, in both Testaments. If you can *PROVE* one or the other of these narrations is wrong WITHIN ONE "FAMILY" of mss, then you can move on to the differences between "families". These differences have been known for centuries, & no one brought'em up till the current versions debates. Simply saying, "They differ from MY fave mss" just won't cut it.

Can GOD not take care of His own word? Much has been made over the fact that Tischendorf found Sinaiticus in a trash can. Wonder how many people think that was a providential find caused by GOD? And Vaticanus? The RCC either used the mss it acquired or burned them if they believed them to be corrupt. But here we have this one mss they neither used nor burned! Was GOD behind its preservation or not?

Who are WE to assume authority over God's word? Is HE not adequate to keep it from corruption? Can the devil REALLY corrupt His word?

Another false point is made about "Yea, hath God said.....? Now, did Satan actually change God's word, or did he simply deny its veracity? This is yet another One-Versionist humbug.

The ONLY way you can PROVE the MVs are corrupt is to prove the devil beat God & succeeded in corrupting His word. Otherwise, you must assume God has caused His word to appear AS HE HAS CHOSEN over the years.

It's my opinion that if the One-Versionists were actually right, that we should find the version of the OT FROM WHICH JESUS READ ALOUD & use it for all subsequent OT translations. It's the ONLY version that JESUS called Scripture.

 

First of all no one can prove conclusively that Origen had anything to do to the variants in the Alexandrian texts (Aleph and B being the most popular).

Secondly we don't really know how the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts came to be at variance (about 5% of the text, less than that if the obvious is corrected).

The Byzantine used to be assumed to be better perserved because they agreed among themsleves to a far greater degree than the Alexandrian between themselves. Plus, They have always constituted the vast majority of extant mss.

Also, the Byzantine texts originated in Asia Minor/Macedonia where Paul evangelized and these texts have always been considered "apostolic". by the local churches of those areas (that is, those which still exist) They ,for the most part, also seem to have been better taken care of than the African texts, much neater and much more "proffessional" looking.

However, None of this absolutely gaurantees the superiority of the Byzantine.

An added historical fact is that the recent papyri discoveries have proven little. p66 is almost the entire Book of John dating back to perhaps as early as AD120 and it is split almost 50/50 as to Byzantine vs Alexandrian type variants and cannot be categorized as either. In any case the early date predates Origen.

So all we have learned from them (that is those that we have) is that the B/A differences go back to at least the 2nd century.

Personally, I stand with the Byzantine (and old itala to fill in a few gaps).

Having said all that however, then the modern versions come ultimately from the original manuscripts with most translated from what are erroneously called "alexandrian" texts and in reality have nothing to do with Origen and his doctrine.

In actuality they are a mixture (with a few exceptions such as the NKJV). None of the MV's follow the Wescott and Hort philosophy in every variant case (older is better, shorter is better).

Personally, I prefer the John Burgon seven-fold agenda:

Antiquity or Primitiveness
Consent of witnesses, or number
Variety of evidence or catholicity
Respectability of witnesses
Continuity or unbroken tradition
Evidence of the entire passage or context
Internal considerations or reasonableness

But this is all subjective.

On another note, I simply can't accept the philosophy that the Greek and Hebrew have been superceded by 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean period English which has undergone "re-inspiration" at the expense of all others translations (this would make the Church of England the Apostolic Church which no Baptist - with one possible and notable exception - has ever accepted).

Secondly I cant accept the "advanced revelation" theory that the "errors" in the AV are in reality not errors but put there by God until He sees fit to reveal them (which one individual says he has done and even written a book and cashed in on revealing some of the said "advanced revelations").

HankD

 

Same to you and all here.

 

A thread based on such a batant lie is sure to turn out like this one, going by the few samples I have read.

 

Thank you God for AVBunyan. :godisgood:

 

No, the KJV was derived from 5210 MSS (99%) of 5255 MSS; MVs were derived from 45 MSS (1%) of 5255 MSS. MVs favored the Alexandrian family of MSS.

 

Quoted by AVBunyan: //Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto
a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ://

I have been called by God to CHECK every verse I read on BB.
It would help me do my job for God if you would specify which
version and which edition you are quoting
on each quote of scirpture. Thank you for helping me serve God
better.

Obviously you have quoted the KJV1769 Edition.
The REAL KJV1611 Edition sez:

Ephesians IIII:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Till we all come ||in the vnitie
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, vnto
a perfect man, vnto the measure of the ||stature of the fulnesse of Christ:

Sidenotes:
|| or, into the vnitie
|| or, age

So another good reading in English would be:

Ephesians IIII:13 (KJV1611 Edition, alternative):
Till we all come into the vnitie
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, vnto
a perfect man, vnto the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ:

 

That is misinformation that textual critics supporting MVs made.

 

Unfortunately the data that says that the
KJV were derived from "about 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts"
and the MVs were derived from "about 45 of the 5255
manuscripts" -- that data was derived by people unqualified
to derive data. Nobody knows just what that data means.

So, Brother Askjo, your statement says nothing.

 

Actually, the AV men had about 20 mss available.

 

Remember also that the AV plainly stated

The AV had all the mss support behind every one of those translations.

Particular attention ought to be paid to the Vulgate (which the AV men drew heavily from) translated from the Hebrew (except for the Psalms) and Greek from mss many of which are probably no longer available to us.

Then there is the Rheims New Testament; an English translation which came out of the Church of Rome translated from the Vulgate. Comparing, You will find an astonishing resemblence to the 1611 AV with some/many verses the same word for word. The Rheims was published in 1582.

So while it may be true that they had a limited number of mss, they had the historical witness of those mss which comprised the "former translations".

I don't think many MV's (apart from those based upon the TR like mss) put much stock in these mss.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an onlyist and use the NKJV and even the NIV in teaching where the modern English is so much clearer to the 21st century ear. Here is my favorite example:

KJV 1769 1 Chronicles 26

12 Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.​

NIV 1984 1 Chronicles 26

12 These divisions of the gatekeepers, through their chief men, had duties for ministering in the temple of the LORD, just as their relatives had.
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.​

So, I ask the onlyists, what difference does it make to know clearly and exactly what this verse in 1 Chronicles says?

Here is my answer:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man
of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

The 21st century native English speaker needs an understandable Scripture in his native tongue.​

Remember the first revelation of the Gospel of the salvation of humankind was written in koine "common" Greek. Not only the common tongue of the helenized world but in the tongue of the common man, written in the language of the street, and not in the classical way or in the language of theological books (for the most part).​

At very least the MV's provide this desire of God for His word to be clearly understood by the "man in the street".​

Herein is the folly of the Church of Rome who proclaimed that the Vulgate which reigned supreme over the Church for 1000 years. It was called the "only" Word of God written in "the language of heaven" by romish theologians.

As Latin slowly turned into Italian, the Word of God was lost to the people and became the mumbo-jumbo of the "sacrifice of the mass".


HankD