Why not...

compare English versions, to see the differences between the many contradictory versions? Many of the contradictory version advocates have spoken out against that process, saying it is not a valid way to show the difference between versions. But look at it, for English speaking people, that shows itself a valid way to show the clear contradictions between versions.

Using the English, the synonyms could be identified, so those places equivalent, or close, could be identified. As well, using the English it would be easy to identify the clear contradictions, the readings showing contrary meanings.

As is very evident by reviewing the English language versions, the King James Version was the predominant English version, and its lineage was predominant, from the time it was introduced till 1881, and then the flood of contradictory versions started to became intense. The battle has not raged simply because of the use of synonyms. The battle for the lineage has been waged much longer than the battle for the English language rendering of those received readings.

The Alexandrian lineage was promoted by two men and reintroduced in 1881. The two men were Westcott & Hort. That stream was introduced to the stream of the Antiochian lineage, causing God's people to say, "Yea, hath God said...".

Further, those sources of the Alexandrian lineage, especially from Aleph and B, were not used for a period of about 1000 years. The preponderance of historical evidence shows the Received Text, or as called, Textus Receptus from the Antiocian lineage was the primary readings used from the first century days of the apostles till now, and is the source used for the King James Version Bible.

The battle for the readings is certainly not new, not at all. For some background, consider the forth century Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian. Helvididius accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek manuscripts for Catholicism. Jovinian was so powerful in his work it took three from Rome, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, to unite in apposing him. This noble work was helpful to Luther when he came on the scene. It was helpful to us of our day, but notice this, there are still those that fight against the received readings and say there is no corrupt text and that say the battle over the readings being fought today has nothing to do with Rome. I refer those interested to “Which Bible?” pages 194-215, David Otis Fuller, D.D..

That battle being fought, that began in the Garden of Eden, and was fought by others as it was fought by Helvidius is being fought now.

Consider these words from a letter by David Otis Fuller:

 

If you are a having difficulty with the word Easter, perhaps you could start another thread on that and ask about its use. While the individual words used are certainly important, my thread is especially about a different foundation being used for the new versions, and how that different foundation changes the received text. The identity of the word of God is at issue with this.

Some are saying the new foundation is correct, actually they are saying the new is the foundation that traces back to the apostles, but I disagree with that as it was not used for about one thousand years, was not part of the reformation readings, and shows evidence as being part of changes made about 350 AD, to the received readings. Actually, I am honestly not that concerned with the “original language” sources, as what was being used is no longer available.

Others, along with me, are saying the lineage is what has been used predominantly till 1881, the Textus Receptus. I reject that which was not used for about 1000 years, but was introduced in 1881.

There are some saying minor differences are all that is different with the new translations, that have no impact on substantial Christian doctrine. That is the point of contention.

F. J. A. Hort doesn't agree about the changes being insignificant. He said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..."

Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, that had been asked to work with them had some words about the significance of the changes. Smith was a Unitarian, denying the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures. He says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts."

With these things, I am not the one that must ultimately convince another to change their position or be settled on their position. Plus, before one person or another is recognized as having the best argument, it must be realized, none of us posting here have gone on to glory and received a well done for what we have to say about these things.

I am settled in my mind the King James Version is the received word of God in the English language, wholly true and wholly complete, nothing lacking. There are others convinced contrary, that say the English of the King James Version is too difficult, and such, but it is amazing, they change the readings based on using Greek, Hebrew and other such sources, plus they rely on different and contradictory manuscripts in those languages. I do not rely on such persons to be the channel of the word of God, but I rely on my King James Version Bible, the received readings in the English language. Again, my argument for the readings is not based on synonyms.

 

Actually, I am honestly not that concerned with the “original language” sources, as what was being used is no longer available. But, when you speak of Textus Receptus, do you mean sources back translated from the KJV itself, or other older sources still extant?

I am convinced there was a “received text” available in 100 AD, and available in 200 AD, etc. and that its readings are now reflected in the King James Version. It is basic, Textus Receptus simply means the received text. You say the KJV is not representative, equivalent to the received text, and say it is. You are not going to stun me by saying the KJV does not agree with the Textus Receptus. That is what the whole controversy is about, i.e., what are the received readings.

I am aware there are many contradictory and conflicting “original language" sources available today, but I am not aware of anyone that says they have the very sources that were "received" in ages past. You do understand “Textus Receptus” refers to received text; i.e., John 17:8?

 

Versions like the LITV follow the Textus Receptus more accurately than the KJV. What is not "wholly true and wholly complete, nothing lacking" about the LITV? Do you think it is more superior or less superior to the KJV?

BTW, you can read/download the LITV at
http://www.litvonline.com/</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply. My answer to BenW applies for what you have said. The controversy is based on what the received text, i.e., the readings (John 17:8), actually are.

 

Do you recognize, readings contradictory in meanings of the KJV are being advanced now, and that the conflicting readings trace to 1881?

 

Those interested are encouraged to go back and read the first post I made on this thread.

Those that disagree with what I have said, where do you say the sure word of God is, now?

Do you have a single source that you can refer to? Or do you instead take different readings showing different meanings of the same passage for different days, with no certain readings being settled in your mind?

Variant readings being available are a fact of life, but they do not cause me to stumble. Myself, I reject the variant readings. I trust my Bible, and don't need to look elsewhere for different and conflicting meanings.

 

This is true when you compare the editions of the KJV over the last 400 years. It is true when you compare the KJV editions available today at your local bookstore. Settlign on the KJV has not solved this problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Larry:

You have been part of the movement to advance a different foundation. The foundation you advance is different than the foundation of the King James Version. W. J. A Hort, and Vance Smith admit to a difference.

What happened to the sure word of God for those one thousand years your readings were lost?

How do you account for the readings foundational to the King James Version being available for all those ages?

 

Bro. Larry:

It is some what difficult for me to take you serious. You said before, you believe the readings of the King James Version, but it seems you selectively believe the readings of the King James version. You say no one has a sure word of God, but instead the words are spread out and not to be identified. I do not accept such a thing. I trust my Bible, and need not look elsewhere to see if some other words will say different. I am not tossed about by all the variant readings.

Now, you are trying to shift attention from the fact of the new foundation you work to advance, in place of the foundation used for the King James Version. You want to cloud the air with typesetting errata and updates to the type face, along with minor spelling corrections, and take the focus off the new and different in meaning foundation of what you want to advance. No thank you. The Bible is not broken and does not need changed.

James White quote:
"Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight."

Now this reasoning of James White, and your reasoning is very flawed. The foundation of the King James Version and the King James Version itself is the oldest readings, so why do you go about telling people it is not to be trusted? Why do you tell people they need to look elsewhere, and to never settle on any readings? Have you been tossed about by wind of the scholars?