KJV versus Modern Translations

[CoreIssue]

Not as Scripture. They were placed by themselves but not added to the Scripture. They were viewed as historical but not inspired.

So you see, this big bru-haha over the KJV today not being the same as the 1611 is nothing but a lie. If you have a KJV Bible, you have the 1611.

Stranger

By that logic if you have the NKJV you have it was the 1611.

 

[Stranger]

By that logic if you have the NKJV you have it was the 1611.

I stick with the KJV. I don't use the NKJV.

Stranger

 

[Enoch111]

I stick with the KJV. I don't use the NKJV.

The NKJV tried to straddle the fence and failed miserably.

 

[Stranger]

The NKJV tried to straddle the fence and failed miserably.

That is what I have heard, though I haven't looked into it. The KJV is the safest and best in my opinion.

Stranger

 

[CoreIssue]

That is what I have heard, though I haven't looked into it. The KJV is the safest and best in my opinion.

Stranger

Says the man build his his house and shifting sands, not solid rock.

 

[Phoneman777]

My reason (and it's not just "my" reason) for supposing that (that "old" means "better") has already been stated, and so far you've given no argument against it.

Self evident by its very nature doesn't require evidence. And it is self evident that "older" doesn't mean "better", it simply means "older" - your supposition is based on subjectivity, because the evidence actually points to "older" actually meaning "corrupted".

This is from II Thessalonians, one of the

first NT documents to be written - so again, Paul cannot possibly be referring to inaccurate copies! He's talking about faked letters - documents that were rejected altogether by the early church and never incorporated into the New Testament.

Nice straw man. I have not claimed that Paul is referring to "copies". What Paul himself plainly makes evident by 2 Thessalonians 2:2 - that men were not above circulating false writings in his day, and by Colossians 2:17 - that the truth was being corrupted in his day, serves to well establish the possibility that corrupted MSS could have been produced, copied, and dug up as the "oldest" - albeit fraudulent - MSS we have today.

I'm sorry... your illustration was evidently so poor I should have abandoned it altogether! As you now admit, all the 'evidence' is hearsay, but do you see no possible distinction between 'close' hearsay and hearsay at a greater 'distance' in time?

Do you not recognize that "close" is for hand grenades and horseshoes, but what we have here is written testimony of Early Church Fathers referencing verses that are absent from the Alexandrian Text but present in the Textus Receptus, proving that they were deliberately left out of the Alexandrian? verses that appear in the Textus Receptus? You're no different than an evolutionist. When Dr. Mary Schweitzer's critics - who continued to discount her evolutionary timetable-shattering evidence derived from dino bones - were asked, "How much evidence would be necessary to convince you to change your mind?" their answer was, "There will never be enough evidence."

Bear in mind that Hippolytus could just as easily be quoting from Mark or Luke, and Irenaeus could be quoting Matthew 22:14.

Yes, but the purpose of Hippolytus' reference has to do with refuting Marcion, who Tertullian called out for his notorious use of the knife instead of the pen with regard to the Bible. Even Origen included the verse in his writings, a verse that the Critical Text claims to not be part of Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

But the TR and the KJV disagree with each other.

No translation is perfect. If you're dissatisfied with the KJV, fine, don't read it. But, please don't argue that the Critical Text is more reliable than the Textus Receptus, especially given that the Early Church Fathers in letters that are OLDER than the Alexandrian MSS are quoting texts found in the Textus Receptus, but are missing in the Critical Text.

 

[CoreIssue]

Self evident by its very nature doesn't require evidence. And it is self evident that "older" doesn't mean "better", it simply means "older" - your supposition is based on subjectivity, because the evidence actually points to "older" actually meaning "corrupted".
Nice straw man. I have not claimed that Paul is referring to "copies". What Paul himself plainly makes evident by 2 Thessalonians 2:2 - that men were not above circulating false writings in his day, and by Colossians 2:17 - that the truth was being corrupted in his day, serves to well establish the possibility that corrupted MSS could have been produced, copied, and dug up as the "oldest" - albeit fraudulent - MSS we have today.
Do you not recognize that "close" is for hand grenades and horseshoes, but what we have here is written testimony of Early Church Fathers referencing verses that are absent from the Alexandrian Text but present in the Textus Receptus, proving that they were deliberately left out of the Alexandrian? verses that appear in the Textus Receptus? You're no different than an evolutionist. When Dr. Mary Schweitzer's critics - who continued to discount her evolutionary timetable-shattering evidence derived from dino bones - were asked, "How much evidence would be necessary to convince you to change your mind?" their answer was, "There will never be enough evidence."
Yes, but the purpose of Hippolytus' reference has to do with refuting Marcion, who Tertullian called out for his notorious use of the knife instead of the pen with regard to the Bible. Even Origen included the verse in his writings, a verse that the Critical Text claims to not be part of Scripture.

But of course you didn't watch a single video.

 

[CoreIssue]

No translation is perfect. If you're dissatisfied with the KJV, fine, don't read it. But, please don't argue that the Critical Text is more reliable than the Textus Receptus, especially given that the Early Church Fathers in letters that are OLDER than the Alexandrian MSS are quoting texts found in the Textus Receptus, but are missing in the Critical Text.

Watch the videos.

 

[farouk]

Correct that’s what the word means
Here is what Webster’s has to say .
Apocrypha
1: writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2capitalized
a: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament
Blessings
Bill

Another term is Deuterocanonical, which means outside the canon...

 

[CoreIssue]

Another term is Deuterocanonical, which means outside the canon...

Dubious in the King James.

 

[farouk]

Dubious in the King James.

Old editions of the King James used to include the Apocrypha.

 

[CoreIssue]

Old editions of the King James used to include the Apocrypha.

But the KJVO crowd says 1611 is the only true Bible. None before and none after.

There are more than just spelling changes in.

And of course that infamous word Easter that does not belong.

 

[farouk]

But the KJVO crowd says 1611 is the only true Bible. None before and none after.

Not a factually based argument, right?

 

[CoreIssue]

Not a factually based argument, right?

Not factual at all.The videos destroy that claim.

 

[farouk]

Not factual at all.The videos destroy that claim.

Those who say "1611 only" - meaning the edition commonly used today - maybe don't realize that the 1611 edition, and most editions until the early 19th century, contained the Apocrypha.

 

[Enoch111]

And of course that infamous word Easter that does not belong.

Still beating that dead horse? Spend some time over the egregious blunders of the NIV, not to mention the unacceptable omissions and corruptions.

 

[CoreIssue]

Still beating that dead horse? Spend some time over the egregious blunders of the NIV, not to mention the unacceptable omissions and corruptions.

Watch the videos.

 

[farouk]

Still beating that dead horse? Spend some time over the egregious blunders of the NIV, not to mention the unacceptable omissions and corruptions.

I do have a lot of problem with the NIV...

Preferably stick to the KJV.

 

[Phoneman777]

But of course you didn't watch a single video.

And, of course, refuse to explain how the writings of the ECFs that are older than the Alexandrian Text contain references to verses that are MISSING from the Alexandrian Text but present in the Traditional Text.