KJV Only...which one!

[CadyandZoe]

“Likely”?

Why do you accept the narrative that the KJV contains errors but not the narrative that the enemies of God (Wescott & Hort) sowed doubt in the word of God with their imaginary anti-faith theories?

I don't accept your premise that Wescott and Hort did anything to the scriptures. These men created an Edition of the Greek New Testament. That's all.

But the modern translations aren't based on the Wescott and Hort Edition. They are based on the "Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (Greek Edition)"
https://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Nestle-Aland-Greek/dp/1619700301

Here you can read the preface of the NASB
Preface to the New American Standard Bible

The Novum represents ALL of the manuscripts available at the time of publication, which includes every reading on which the KJV is based. Nothing is missing. Nothing is left out. It is ALL there.

The difference between the KJV and the modern translations is NOT due to anything that Wescott & Hort produced. Rather, the difference between the KJV and the modern translations is due to a change in perspective concerning the age of the manuscripts. On one side we have scholars who believe that translators should give more weight to earlier readings, while other scholars believe that translators should give more weight to later readings.

In any case, EVERY reading is included in the NA28. And translators are free to use their own judgment concerning which readings to represent in the English language. The translators and scholars are NOT being influenced by Wescott and Hort in the slightest.

 

[Naomanos]

Though there are hundreds of versions and translations of the Bible, the KJV is the most popular. According to market research firm Statistica, as of 2017, more than 31% of Americans read the KJV, with the New International Version coming in second place, at 13%.

That is no longer the case.

Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations Compared to Ten Years Ago (2021 Update) | Church Answers

Five large denominations of Christianity — Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Latter-day Saints and Pentecostal — use the KJV today.

I wonder how accurate that is today as this article is from 2016. I cannot find more current statistics. Also, as a former cradle Catholic who is now an Episcopalian, my Episcopal church has NKJV bibles in the pews as well as links to the Sunday mass scripture readings that link to NKJV verses.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

If you were to click on the link you quoted from me, you would have gotten the answer.

Anyways, you do not need the TR Greek text because nobody on the planet truly knows Koine Greek with 100% accuracy. Such a language is gone and dead. Men are only guessing as to what this language says. God did all the heavy lifting for you. You just need the Bible in English to read and study and this would be the 1900 Cambridge King James Edition. You can read this version of the KJV at Biblehub.com (Provided by Bible Protector).

This a rather bold assumption, considering you have never met everyone who studied Koine Greek. I also doubt you have ever studied it for yourself long enough to know for absolute certainty that no one can understand it 100%. The original texts override anything that any translated bible says because they were inspired by God, not the flawed work of translators.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This a rather bold assumption, considering you have never met everyone who studied Koine Greek. I also doubt you have ever studied it for yourself long enough to know for absolute certainty that no one can understand it 100%. The original texts override anything that any translated bible says because they were inspired by God, not the flawed work of translators.

Think. People misunderstand the Bible in English in hundreds of ways, and you want them to understand it in a completely foreign and dead language that has not been around for thousands of years? Also, folks are only learning based on what RECENT “Biblical Hebrew/Koine Greek” dictionaries say. These dictionaries were not passed down from Moses and the apostle Paul to be with true accuracy that is not biased by men who may be influenced to their own personal beliefs. Lexicons we have today are generally from the REVISERS who attacked the Received Text and or the King James Bible that existed for hundreds of years prior. Take for example James Strong and his concordance. While his concordance is based on the TR (Textus Receptus) to favor the KJB, he technically was a REVISER who worked with Westcott and Hort on their Critical Text.

I tried to study a Portuguese (Brazilian) to English book to impress my fiancé (now my wife) when we used to date. She ended up correcting me on a lot of things that book said. So just because it is in a book does not mean it is an accurate book by any means and then there is how languages change throughout time and different idioms, etcetera that could be lost to time. Unless. Unless…. God simply preserved His Words for us today by divine intervention. That’s the only way we can have God’s words. The other way is only a flawed human reasoning. It would be men simply guessing as to what God said in some dead language. For if God left men alone to preserve His words, we don’t know what the Bible would really be like. We would not even know if we had the Bible (if such were the case). So God either preserved His Words today by His power or He didn’t. I am mean… stop and think a moment. Really think about this. God made the flesh and bones of giant sea creatures like whales and dinosaurs. God made the Earth to be at the right tilt in orbit, and the right distance from the sun. Everything is perfect for life. A little bit that way or a little bit this way and there would no life on our planet. Jesus held all things together by the Word of His power when He was on the cross (According to Scripture). But God has no power to preserve His own words? His very own Word says that His words will be preserved forever and they are perfect, and I believe Him (See: Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't accept your premise that Wescott and Hort did anything to the scriptures. These men created an Edition of the Greek New Testament. That's all.

But the modern translations aren't based on the Wescott and Hort Edition. They are based on the "Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (Greek Edition)"
https://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Nestle-Aland-Greek/dp/1619700301

Here you can read the preface of the NASB
Preface to the New American Standard Bible

The Novum represents ALL of the manuscripts available at the time of publication, which includes every reading on which the KJV is based. Nothing is missing. Nothing is left out. It is ALL there.

The difference between the KJV and the modern translations is NOT due to anything that Wescott & Hort produced. Rather, the difference between the KJV and the modern translations is due to a change in perspective concerning the age of the manuscripts. On one side we have scholars who believe that translators should give more weight to earlier readings, while other scholars believe that translators should give more weight to later readings.

In any case, EVERY reading is included in the NA28. And translators are free to use their own judgment concerning which readings to represent in the English language. The translators and scholars are NOT being influenced by Wescott and Hort in the slightest.

The Modern English Translations today are based on the Nestle and Aland. This is true. But you are not aware that the Nestle and Aland still uses the Westcott and Hort text to a good degree. Not entirely… but it does rely upon it still.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't accept your premise that Wescott and Hort did anything to the scriptures. These men created an Edition of the Greek New Testament. That's all.

But the modern translations aren't based on the Wescott and Hort Edition. They are based on the "Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland (Greek Edition)"
https://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Nestle-Aland-Greek/dp/1619700301

Here you can read the preface of the NASB
Preface to the New American Standard Bible

The Novum represents ALL of the manuscripts available at the time of publication, which includes every reading on which the KJV is based. Nothing is missing. Nothing is left out. It is ALL there.

The difference between the KJV and the modern translations is NOT due to anything that Wescott & Hort produced. Rather, the difference between the KJV and the modern translations is due to a change in perspective concerning the age of the manuscripts. On one side we have scholars who believe that translators should give more weight to earlier readings, while other scholars believe that translators should give more weight to later readings.

In any case, EVERY reading is included in the NA28. And translators are free to use their own judgment concerning which readings to represent in the English language. The translators and scholars are NOT being influenced by Wescott and Hort in the slightest.

This study was done a long time ago.

Source:
Statistical comparison of editions of the Greek New Testament

 

[CadyandZoe]

My premise?

Are you living under a rock? Or are you just willfully ignorant.

I did not come up with a premise. Look at the record and ignore the facts at your own loss.

For one to read the records of Wescott & Hort and the documentation regarding their efforts to de-throne the Received Text and still believe that no foul play is involved is a fool.

You are the second person in this thread to attack my character. Why all this hatred? You don't know me and I am using an alias so I forgive you. But try to sharpen your argument instead.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Modern English Translations today are based on the Nestle and Aland. This is true. But you are not aware that the Nestle and Aland still uses the Westcott and Hort text to a good degree. Not entirely… but it does rely upon it still.

But you seem to miss the essential point The NA28 contains ALL of the manuscripts, including those found in the Textus Receptus. Nothing is missing at all.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This study was done a long time ago.

Source:
Statistical comparison of editions of the Greek New Testament

Yes, there are differences between Greek Editions. So what?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But you seem to miss the essential point The NA28 contains ALL of the manuscripts, including those found in the Textus Receptus. Nothing is missing at all.

You mean it contains all of the Alexandrian corrupt manuscripts. It does not include the TR (Textus Receptus).

Here are the differences:

Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text - Textus Receptus Bibles

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, there are differences between Greek Editions. So what?

You don’t understand that there are two lines of manuscripts.
One pure and one corrupt.

However, the chart above here that says the Sinaiticus is from 350 AD is false.
It’s actually a recent corrupt manuscript or forgery.

Take for example:

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God or the words of men?

By the way Modern Scholarship Believers speak here, it sounds like they believe that the Bible is a work of men and not God.

That’s the problem.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You don’t understand that there are two lines of manuscripts.
One pure and one corrupt.

I don't consider either one corrupt.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You mean it contains all of the Alexandrian corrupt manuscripts. It does not include the TR (Textus Receptus).

Sure it does. Who told you it didn't? By the way did you ever hold an NA28 in your hand? Or are you just taking the word of others?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure it does. Who told you it didn't? By the way did you ever hold an NA28 in your hand? Or are you just taking the word of others?

I provided a list of verses from Textus Receptus Bibles that show you the changes. You can look them up yourself at the actual Nestle and Aland online text.

For example: The Nestle and Aland 28th Edition does not have 1 John 5:7. You can see that the Greek words are a lot shorter (Which favors the English Modern Bibles that removes 1 John 5:7, too).

Source:
Nestle and Aland (28th Edition) Online:
Read the Bible text :: academic-bible.com

At Yandex Translate:

We can see in the Textus Receptus, in Matthew 6:1, the following:

Source:
Interlinear Bible: Matthew 6:1 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Now, we punch this into Yandex and it says what our English Bible says for the most part.

Source:
Yandex Translation

However, if you were to copy and paste the Greek from the Nestle and Aland online for Matthew 6:1, and paste it into the Yandex Translate it will show you that it lines up with a different text or rendering we see in English. In English it refers to righteousness instead of alms.

So Textus Receptus Bibles is right.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure it does. Who told you it didn't? By the way did you ever hold an NA28 in your hand? Or are you just taking the word of others?

Here is the list of changes that you can check for yourself by taking the actual Greek from the Textus Receptus and copying and pasting it into Yandex.

Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text - Textus Receptus Bibles

Then you can take the Greek from the Nestle and Aland and copy and paste it into Yandex and see the changes. The Nestle and Aland does not use the TR (Textus Receptus) as it's primary base. It uses the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts as its primary textual basis.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure it does. Who told you it didn't? By the way did you ever hold an NA28 in your hand? Or are you just taking the word of others?

Please keep in mind that the TextusReceptus Bibles is TRO and not KJVO. They are “Textus Receptus Only” and they are open to re-translating and or updating the KJB (of which I do not agree with). But the point here is that Textus Receptus Bibles website shows you the changes of which you can confirm for yourself with other online resources.

 

[farouk]

Please keep in mind that the TextusReceptus Bibles is TRO and not KJVO. They are “Textus Receptus Only” and they are open to re-translating and or updating the KJB (of which I do not agree with). But the point here is that Textus Receptus Bibles website shows you the changes of which you can confirm for yourself with other online resources.

I do appreciate the King James and I do appreciate the Received Text. (There have been a number of editions of these, of course.)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do appreciate the King James and I do appreciate the Received Text. (There have been a number of editions of these, of course.)

I believe there seven Major KJB editions that lines up with Psalms 12:6 that says that the words of the Lord are purified seven times.

Why would I believe this?
Well, there 101 reasons came up with for the existence of a perfect Bible today. The KJB has the marks in being the best candidate.

I believe the KJB Cambridge Edition 1900 is the final seventh purified version (or settled edition).

 

[farouk]

I believe there seven Major KJB editions that lines up with Psalms 12:6 that says that the words of the Lord are purified seven times.

Why would I believe this?
Well, there 101 reasons came up with for the existence of a perfect Bible today. The KJB has the marks in being the best candidate.

I believe the KJB Cambridge Edition 1900 is the final seventh purified version (or settled edition).

In the passage quoted, the context suggests that it is the people mentioned in the preceding passage that are preserved.

I do believe in the principle of the preservation of the Scriptures.

 

[farouk]

Re. Psalm 12.7, Matthew Henry has a helpful commentary:

Commentary on Psalms 12 by Matthew Henry