Why so much against KJB-only?

Good! We glad to see you finally getting on the right track!

 

Don't flatter yourself. Where does Rev 22:18-19 say anything about the KJV(kjb)? YOU are the one adding to His Word by pickling it in the KJV(kjb). I resuse to limit God as you appear to do by being a Bible facist. I have history on my side. Your position is new, since 1930, and makes God to be a respecter of persons....shall I go on?

 

Orvie, I'll just let the evidence stand all on it's own in your post. I can see your irrationality protruding forth again.

 

I'm glad you admit your logic fails, or that you simply cannot defend your pickling of the KJV(kjb)

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I am not saying, nor have I said, nor implied that God did not, nor has not kept his word preserved prior to the KJV translation (I have said the opposite of that) - the evidence is contrary to that, and this is what underlines the KJV translation. Others here however, have implied that God has kept his word hidden, by their very acknowledgement and approval of those very texts in the manuscripts that were hidden and not in agreement with the majority texts. That is one thing if some of the texts agree with the already in agreement texts of the Majority texts (this verifies the validity of God's word) that have been available for centuries, however it is quite a DIFFERENT thing altogether to rely upon and trust those things that are in DISAGREEMENT with and have been stagnant from the MAJORITY texts that DO AGREE (and have been absent from the church for centuries), and claim that they are God's word. These texts that are in the minority (1%) are in DISAGREEMENT with the texts of the majority (those texts that agree one with the other from various regions, from various ages and various churches)that underly the modern versions - Aleph and B, and yes, in areas they do agree with the majority texts, however the overall of them do not, and disagree in many points one from the other (the 1%), yet they are what underly the modern versions. Yes, I have read BOTH sides of this issue, and the Lord has given me a brain to think and reason with, that I use to come to a truthful, logical, and common sense understanding of these things. I do not want to be decieved, and I do not want to believe men, but only believe God.

Gail Riplinger gives a very important and relevant verse of scripture in her book pertaining to this to which I am in agreement concerning this issue:

Proverbs 11:1
A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

This passage is referring to selling something more than what it is worth, however there is also a spiritual meaning to this, since God is Spirit. If someone is trying to translate God's word less than (watered down) what was intended (true value), this also would be an abomination, ecspecially considering we are talking about the very word of God! God requires a balance and proper/orderly fashion in doing things, and this would definately apply to the translation of his holy and pure word, which his children live by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The modern versions have tried to justify and pass off a watered down and altered version of God's pure and holy word as being the very pure word of God - when indeed it is not, and has watered down the very word of God. They represent a false balance of his word, under the guise of a translation for the benefit of those that live in a different culture and modern world. God is the same God yesturday, today, tomorrow, and forever more, therefore what he has said and given to us then, does not change it for today or for modern man, nor do we have the AUTHORIZATION to do so with his word of truth. By the way, have you all understood the verses of scripture plainly from the KJV that I have quoted? Or does it read like another language to you?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Others have implied it. Others are arguing for the word-for-word perfection of the KJV, and that this word-for-word perfection is necessary because God is perfect - thus any changes in words is a corruption. Since nothing prior to the KJV matches the KJV word-for-word, that position implies God did not preserve his word prior to the KJV.

The problem is that the KJV differs occasionally from what underlies it. Are these differences improvements? Corruptions? Neither?

I can see how you would understand it that way, but that is not our position. We are NOT saying that the KJV and its underlying texts are not God's word. God did NOT keep his word hidden, it was readily available: the Geneva, the KJV, the TR, the Vulgate, Luther's, Wycliffe's, the Peshitta, the LXX, etc. are ALL God's word despite their differences.

The agreement in the Majority texts is a *general* agreement. No two "Majority" manuscripts are in 100% word-for-word agreement.

It is only different in scale. As I've already said, Moajority manuscripts and translations derived from them have disagreements amongst themselves, yet I am comfortable (as are you, apparently) calling them all "the word of God" despite these differences.

Actually, the overall DOES agree. Yes, there is MORE disagreement in Aleph and B than with other manuscripts, but overall the agree much more often than they do not.

That's the verse I've been using against the double-standards of KJV-onlyism for quite some time. See some examples of double-standards (that no one responeded to or explained) at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1243.html#000004 and http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1243/2.html#000027

The passage is also referring to measuring things by two different standards, using one standard for certain times and another standard for others.

That is a circular argument. How do you know that the others haven't *added* to the word of God, and the "watering down" is really a removal of what was not originally there? THAT is the false balance: you are measuring the KJV by one standard, and other versions by another. The KJV "waters down" Acts 4:24, Jude 1:25, Psalm 145:13, don't you think? No? Oh.

Ah. Explain 1605 please. If they already had the word God gave to them, why did they change it?

I have understood them. And I believe they were true *before* the KJV was produced, despite being *different* from the KJV.

 

Exactly, so things that are different can be the same - TRUE. Which is what I believe about the differences between the KJV and the MV's. They all say the same thing, but they do it in different ways.

I have, I've listened, and your judgement is wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about here. You are free to do as God is leading you, but don't tell me I'm wrong for not following you.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior!

Brian T, I cannot help the fact that you do not understand, nor comprehend the manuscript issue. Can you please explain to me, how a translation that has taken away from the literal translation of the manuscripts that overwhelming have agreed (indicated those very words to be in the verse of the majority of the manuscripts)those very words because the minority of the manuscripts that agree, do not include them? How can you justify this? This is deleting from God's preserved word.

Example: the NIV omitts: in Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen.
(BTW, the Roman Catholic Church also omitts this verse)

Now what about the rest of our Lord's prayer? Why Does the KJV give the whole literal reading, and the NIV and others deleted from this the "Our" Father "which art in heaven"? Why has the verse of this passage "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth," been deleted and "but deliver us from evil" ? And many, many more examples could be given. Is this being an accurate balance to that of what God has preserved? Or isn't this just one small sample of a false balance that is an abomination to him? Do you honestly believe that proper reading of this passage is this: "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, Give us each day our daily bread, forgive us our sins for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation"? Do you honestly think that the KJV translators added all those things that have not been included in the NIV? By the way, seems silly to pray for our daily bread (the word of God) when part of it is missing from your version. Is it better to live on all of what God has given, or just part of it? Do you like only getting part of the daily bread for your nourishment, or the whole thing? Which will be more beneficial to one's nourishment to a healthy and happy life?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No literal proof?? You have read your Bible. YOu know good and well that more than 1500 years before the KJV< the apostles were quoting from Scripture. What were they quoting from? Some version other than the KJV. Therefore, there is undeniable proof that God approves of versions other than the KJV. This is so simple ... how can you miss it??

I haven't usurped any authority. I haven't told you what version to use. I have merely said what Scripture says and Scripture is the authority.

But the stand you have taken is wrong. God commands us to love his truth enough to expose wrong stands. Therefore, we lovingly and tactfully, but directly, have tried to save your from false doctrine. So far, you have yet to show us where God has said he is on our side. We have shown you many places where God talks like he is on our side. Now who should we believe, God or precepts???

 

I believe Brian understands more about the manuscript issue than you do by several orders of magnitude.

The shorter reading is contained in Aleph, B, D, and 0170 and the 4 manuscripts making up what is called "family 1."

The longer reading is contained in K, L, W, Delta, Theta, Pie, and the 14 manuscripts making up what is called "family 13" as well as 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2174, and all the Byzantine manuscripts.

In my opinion the longer reading has much better attestation using the criteria I prefer, but other good an honest men, who really understand the "manuscript issue" as you call it, disagree.

There are good and honest men who consider the reading of Aleph and B, when they agree, to be final. I consider that view as giving far too much weight to two very poorly copied manuscripts, but, unfortunately, that "mantra" has become almost a fundamental of modern scientific textual criticism, without, in my opinion, sufficient support to sustain the view.

Because it is omitted from the Latin Vulgate, the official bible of the RCC, not because the NIV or any other modern version is based on Roman Catholic Texts. To the best of my knowledge, no commonly available modern English bible is based on the Latin Vulgate.

 

I believe that the church has always had his word and had all of it unless it has been altered or corrupted. So believe what you just said ... yet you make something up and accuse me of believing something I don't believe. Why???

I think we all agree that God has preserved his word. That is not the issue. You should know that. The issue is "How did he preserve his word?" There is not one verse that you can use to support your position of "single version preservation."

You talk to Brian about manuscripts that overwhelming agree but you use a version that includes words and verses that are in the minority of manuscripts. You are inconsistent. Did no one ever explain that to you?

 

I understand and comprehend much more than you realize, thanks.

Simple. Because majority agreement does not guarantee authenticity. An addition copied out a thousand times is still an addition. You cannot be certain they are "deleting" from one line, instead of "adding" to the other. We must therefore put ALL evidence on the table, and not prejudge the evidence that doesn't agree with our preconception.

How do you know this was omitted? How do you know it wasn't *added* early in the line of majority manuscripts?

Example: the KJV "omits" in Jude 1:25 "...through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages...".

You see, if you stand on one side, the other side looks wrong. If you pre-assume one side is correct, you create a circular argument of proof that the other is wrong. Instead, you need to back up and look at BOTH in light of the textual evidence.

No, I don't believe the KJV translators added them. I believe someone much earlier than the KJV translators added them, and those things thus found their way into the TR, and were simly translated by the KJV translators.

Is it better to live on what God has given, or on that plus additional stuff?

Do you like the waiter putting extra mayo on your sandwich (with good intentions) because he thought the chef didn't put enough on and that you would like more than what was originally given?

It's not about getting "part", it's about getting what was originally written without deletions OR ADDITIONS.

 

Agreed. There are no guarantees regarding this issue, that is why we walk by faith.

But doesn't that scenario presuppose the Byzantine manuscripts are closely related in a genealogical sense? And hasn't the work of Lake, Blake, and New established the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts are not closely related in any genealogical sense? And doesn't a presumption then exist toward their relative independence from each other rather than their dependence upon one another? And doesn't this makes the Byzantine manuscripts highly individualistic witnesses which cannot be summarily lumped together as one "mere" text type, to be played off against other competing text types? And doesn't this relative autonomy, in contradistinction to the prevailing theory that the Byzantine text type is the result of copying closely related families of manuscripts and thus only weighs as one witness, have great significance in the weighing of the manuscript evidence?

 

Whoa, skanwmatos, that's a lot of questions.

I'm not familiar with the details of Lake, Blake, and New's work. However, if their conclusion is correct, then yes I would think that would add much more weight to the collective witnesses classified as "Byzantine" (btw, even without their conclusions, I don't consider the Byzantine line to be "one witness"). But it would certainly not solve the problem if their work was proved to be conclusive and everyone agreed with it - it would just shift a few things and a new settling point would be reached and a new edition of N/A would be printed and UBS would probabaly update their apparatus. But we still have many puzzling and interesting features that don't "fit" nicely, such as "Alexandrian" readings in Syrian manuscripts, Old Latin that can make up its mind if it supports the Byzantine readings or not, minority readings that don't let the Majority win the vote (e.g. 1 John 5:7), etc.

But yes, if the Byzantine "dependency" concept was weakened, I think that would add more weight to Byzantine readings in general.

 

"The Cesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark," Harvard Theological Review #21, 1928, by Lake, Blake, and New.

Then you differ from most of those who compiled UBS/NA for the textual apparatus of UBS/NA lists all Byzantine manuscripts as a single witness.

But, for some reason, their work has been virtually ignored even though it casts serious doubt on the stemmatic system championed by Westcott and Hort and adopted by virtually all textual critics today.

The so-called "cross textual affinities" are fairly common in all manuscript types. Byzantine texts are known to contain Alexandrian readings and vice versa.

In some places it does, and in other places it doesn't, which leads me to believe it may be based on a now defunct Western text type which may have been a partially corrected Alexandrian text.

I don't think there is any doubt that the comma is a minority reading, but it seems odd to me that so many today will reject the comma, even with a little manuscript evidence, yet accept a reading with no manuscript evidence at all to support it.

I certainly hope that many more will learn to see what seems to be me to so obvious.

 

Agreed. There are no guarantees regarding this issue, that is why we walk by faith.

But doesn't that scenario presuppose the Byzantine manuscripts are closely related in a genealogical sense? And hasn't the work of Lake, Blake, and New established the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts are not closely related in any genealogical sense? </font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. The work of Lake, Blake, and New has established that the particular Byzantine MSS they found in three specific monasteries could not be proven to be *directly* genealogically related. But even though none of the Byzantine MSS they examined could be proven to be "direct descent" copies, that doesn't mean they weren't "indirect descent" copies. It's *extremely* difficult to prove that two copies are direct descendents, especially in the case of the NT where the transmissional history has so much mixture and "cross-contamination" of text types.

 

Thanks.

Maybe, maybe not. When I see "Byz" listed in the apparatus, I don't think they do it to indicate "one witness", but rather to save space. I certainly don't take it to mean "one witness" or "weight = 1" or whatever, but rather simply an indication that most of the Byzantine manuscripts read that way. Most people realize that UBS's apparatus is not exhaustive, it's more of a summary.

To be honest, I think the problem is not that anyone is deliberately ignoring it, but rather that fully understanding such matters is hugely time consuming, so people sort of just "go with the flow" (myself included, to some extent). Most people don't really understand all the intricacies involved - there's just too much, unless you're a professional student in this area. I've found that most people (myself included) don't really understand all the aspects of Westcott and Hort's approach, let alone alternative theories and studies. Of course, there are exceptions, but I think the whole field, like a large ship, turns slowly - maybe if more people were involved in detailed study, things would turn faster.

Have you every tried to slog through Westcott and Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament..."? Oh my goodness, what a brain-numbing book. I personally like those two guys, but it takes me serious willpower to make it through more than a page at a time of that book. It's wordy and the grammar and concepts are quite complex, and it sometimes takes me two or three slow reads to fully grasp what a paragraph is saying. And no, I don't consider myself a slow reader or slow learner. I'm just saying that becoming *really* well-versed in this area, enough to *really* critique/compare differing theories in detail, takes tremendous effort and most people don't have the time or interest.

I would like to hear more about Lake, Blake, and New though. I'll look for that book. Any online articles? I'll look for some.

I agree. I find these especially interesting, even appealing.

For example...?

Ah, how refreshing. An actual discussion in the Bible Versions forum. Whodathunk.

 

Perhaps I am inferring something that is not there, but, nevertheless, when I look at the other entries in their Introduction, I find the manuscripts listed for the families, as well as individual listings of virtually all Alexandrian manuscripts, both Uncial and Minuscule, but under "Byz" I see only "the reading of the majority of Byzantine manuscripts" without even a note telling us how many there are.

Human inertia! That could very well be the problem! It is just too much work to do more than read a few of the most popular books on the subject.

Yes! Any time I am having trouble sleeping I just read a few paragraphs and pretty soon I am sleeping like a baby!

I have been looking for a body of work by them but can only find references to that body of work but not the full text of even the one article, but I'll keep looking.

Well, I hate to bring it up again, but the "42" in 2 Chron 22:2 comes immediately to mind. No Hebrew mss evidence to support any other reading, and even the LXX does not support 42 but reads 20 as opposed to 22 which is what so many people want the verse to read.

I was thinking the same thing!

 

I hope you two friends note that this
topic will get cut off somewhere on
the 20th page (maybe the 21st) ...

Michelle: "Example: the NIV omitts: in Matthew 6:13
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever, Amen".//

Today's Parallel Bible, NIV, footnote
for Matthew 6:13 on page 2212 says:
13 ... for yours is the kingdom and the power
and the glory forever. Amen.

Therefore, the NIV does NOT omit this phrase
but properly documents it (which the KJV does not, BTW)

 

Since when is it proper to put the Word of God in a footnote in the Bible? Never! That is why we disagree with the niv so much. Thanks for the support, even though it wasn't meant to be.