King James Version Only...?

[Bobby Jo]

Actually the oldest manuscript ...

... and the ONLY RELIABLE O.T. Manuscript is the Masoretic Text. All others are derivations with inherent linguistic FAILURES, and even for DELIBERATE attempts to skew the Original Text to achieve whatever "historical"/"doctrinal" AGENDAS!

Bobby Jo

 

[BarneyFife]

Yes you are, -- both "legitimate" and "silly" at the same time!

Bobby Jo

I'm really not interested in trading insults. The way you're representing my words is nonsensical. If you'd read back over our exchange carefully you'd see that. This will end my part of the discussion. May God bless you.

 

[Davy]

Actually the oldest manuscripts are the MOST CORRUPT. Burgon, Scrivener, and many other conservative textual scholars established that by actually collating them against the majority of manuscripts.

The only reason the most corrupt manuscripts were promoted as "the best" is because of irrational hatred for the Received Text (TR) and the King James Bible (based upon the TR).

BURGON'S PREFACE TO THE REVISION REVISED
"My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt
which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a
Revision of the Sacred Text, which—recommended though it be
by eminent names—I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to
prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end."

Yes, I agree. Just like with many things in these last days, the devil and his workers have pushed yet another hoax in trying to take over what belongs to God Himself.

 

[JohnDB]

... and the ONLY RELIABLE O.T. Manuscript is the Masoretic Text. All others are derivations with inherent linguistic FAILURES, and even for DELIBERATE attempts to skew the Original Text to achieve whatever "historical"/"doctrinal" AGENDAS!

Bobby Jo

Actually there are others that cover the Old Testament other than the Masoretic texts.
The Dead Sea scrolls, Syriac, and I'm drawing a senior moment on the names of the others...but there's several ones.

But in actual Hebrew...not that many. The one that we really wanted got stolen during WWII by various Jews. Elisha's cave got hit by a mortar round and the guys fighting in the area broke in and took fragments...put them in their wallets and etc for keepsake talisman type treasures...
But in doing so destroyed the legacy of one of the great Judaism Rabbi.
At this point the Israeli Government is saying that there will be no charges for anyone returning the fragments...but no one believes them. They really want that Tenakh in one piece.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... The way you're representing ...

... Scripture is not "silly", -- it's LEGITIMATE!

But if you have a problem with the LITERAL TEXT of Scripture, then I suggest you take it up the the AUTHOR!
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

Actually there are others that cover the Old Testament other than the Masoretic texts.
The Dead Sea scrolls, Syriac, and I'm drawing a senior moment on the names of the others...but there's several ones....

I believe you've confused the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their purpose was to evaluate the reliability of EITHER the Masoretic or Septuagint, which VALIDATED the Masoretic; and to further evaluate the consistency of the Masoretic Text over the millennia, and the Masoretic proved reliable:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

...
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
...
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, [?Septuagint?]scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
...
A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
...
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
...
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
...
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
...
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
...

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/266​

Bobby Jo

 

[Enoch111]

... and the ONLY RELIABLE O.T. Manuscript is the Masoretic Text. All others are derivations with inherent linguistic FAILURES, and even for DELIBERATE attempts to skew the Original Text to achieve whatever "historical"/"doctrinal" AGENDAS!

This is correct. Even the Septuagint is a very corrupt version of the Masoretic Text. And the fact that it incorporates the Apocrypha proves this. The Samaritan Pentateuch was also a corruption, and the corruptions of heretics such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion should not even have been consulted. But Kittel's Biblia Hebraica went to all these questionable sources to corrupt the MT. And this is the basis of the modern bible versions.

 

[JohnDB]

I believe you've confused the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They purpose was to evaluate the reliability of EITHER the Masoretic or Septuagint, which VALIDATED the Masoretic; and to further evaluate the consistency of the Masoretic Text over the millennia, and the Masoretic proved reliable:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

...
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
...
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, [?Septuagint?]scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
...
A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
...
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
...
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
...
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
...
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
...

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/266​

Bobby Jo

There was an extra line or two in Deuteronomy...but yes, it did verify the Masoretic texts.

 

[BarneyFife]

... Scripture is not "silly", -- it's LEGITIMATE!

But if you have a problem with the LITERAL TEXT of Scripture, then I suggest you take it up the the AUTHOR!
Bobby Jo

You have last-word-itis so bad you'll say any ridiculous thing.

 

[Bobby Jo]

You have last-word-itis so bad you'll say ...

... EXACTLY what Scripture depicts:

... the Masoretic Text is LEGITIMATE:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[1]

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”[2]

[1] IJohn Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217,
[2] IBID, p. 218​

... and there is NO PRECEDENT in Scripture or any Society where numbers are summed as "seven and sixty-two":

Sir Isaac Newton’s DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE
by Sir William Whitla, London, 1922, Chapt. X, p. 281 Daniel and the Apocalypse

We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation.​

... but a dozen and a half; a mile and a quarter; fourscore and ten; -- are ALL LEGITIMATE.


It's the liars which are ILLEGITIMATE!
Bobby Jo

 

[JohnDB]

I know that I would like it if there would be a great new discovery of a copy of St John's Apocalypse...

The only complete ones we have are based on the Latin Vulgate...

It's that line:
And I/the dragon stood on the shore that I want clarification on.

 

[strobe]

The first chapter of the bible proves that the KJV is not perfect. Read Genesis 1:26-27 and compare them closely in the KJV and NIV or ESV. You will see that the modern versions show that the formatting of the verses is different but the KJV omits this feature. I believe these verses unlock an amazing biblical truth that is rarely mentioned - we were not made IN the image of God, we are being made INTO His image.

 

[Truther]

The first chapter of the bible proves that the KJV is not perfect. Read Genesis 1:26-27 and compare them closely in the KJV and NIV or ESV. You will see that the modern versions show that the formatting of the verses is different but the KJV omits this feature. I believe these verses unlock an amazing biblical truth that is rarely mentioned - we were not made IN the image of God, we are being made INTO His image.

No, the modern versions are corrupted.

We are made in the image of the man Christ Jesus per Romans 5:14(whom God knew from the foundation of the earth).

The modern version "translators" did not read the Bible they were tinkering with.

 

[Truther]

One reason, among many, the modern "translators" change the wordings so drastically from each other is to make the Bible explain THEIR beliefs, rather than to adhere to ancient scriptural beliefs.

 

[Pearl]

The bible has been translated into so many different languages apart from English so how can people still say the it is the best translation?

 

[Truther]

The KJV is the plumbline for all language translations to compare to.

 

[Pearl]

The KJV is the plumbline for all language translations to compare to.

No, I don't think it is, that would be the original text.

 

[Truther]

No, I don't think it is, that would be the original text.

The original text does not exist anymore.

 

[Pearl]

The original text does not exist anymore.

Well the Latin text then - the scriptures weren't written in English for a long time.

 

[Pearl]

I think all translations may have certain errors in them due to human error of of one translator seeing things slightly differently from another. But even if you do like the KJV you must admit that the modern ones are easier to understand and that's what counts. The KJV was written in an encient form of language that nobody uses any longer.