KJVO?

[sojourner4Christ]

[SIZE=medium]In the main, Chuckt's post is researchably, demonstrably correct![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I’ll add a few comments.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What Bible did the Catholics read? There wasn't one because it wasn't translated.

We have Wycliffe's Bible in 1382 and we have the Catholic DOUAY-Rheims Bible in 1582. That is a difference of 200 years and I think the Catholics were forced to print it to compete. If you know your history and if it isn't a lie then show me a Catholic Bible translated for the masses before that because there wasn't one.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“Old corrupt manuscripts [e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus], which had been discarded by the God-guided usage of the believing church were brought out of their hiding place and re-instated...and today thousands of Bible-believing Christians are falling into this devils trap through their use of modern speech versions.” -- Dr. Edward Hills, Harvard and Princeton textual scholar.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Protestant theologians question its lack of use (the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript, or “B”) by anyone for 1300 years -- then its sudden ‘discovery’ in the Vatican in 1481. Its immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582, as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible, are logical, considering the manuscript’s omission of anti-Catholic sections and books (i.e., Hebrews 9:14, Revelation, etc.). Its Catholic ‘tone’ is evidenced by the fact that at Vatican Council II, each bishop was given his own copy with an introduction by Jesuit priest, Carlo Martini (Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 74). Protestant researchers have never been permitted to examine the actual manuscript and work only from copies provided by the Vatican. And it agrees essentially with the heretic Origen’s Hexapla, omitting the deity of Christ frequently, and making other Gnostic or Arian alterations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]It’s a similar story with the corrupt Sinaiticus manuscript (or “Aleph”). When using this manuscript to ‘alter’ the new versions, Greek editors must choose between Aleph A, Aleph B, and Aleph C, the three principle correctors. Because of its blatant omissions and alterations, it lapsed into a wastebasket in a monastery, where it was ‘discovered’ by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid-eighteen hundreds. It was kept by the Russian government from 1859 until 1933. Eastern Germany and Russia, however, still retain portions of it. The fact that some pages were written on sheepskin and some on goatskin is a telling sign of its part-Christian, part-heathen character.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The only people who learned Latin or Greek were connected to the monestaries because they were the center of learning and they wouldn't permit outsiders knowing the truth and that is why they were burning the Bible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Nothing since has changed, to this day![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Those Heretics who pretend that the laity need not know God’s law but that the knowledge which priests have had imparted to them by word of mouth is sufficient, do not deserve to be listened to. For Holy Scriptures is the faith of the Church, and the more widely its true meaning becomes known the better it will be. Therefore since the laity should know the faith, it should be taught in whatever language is most easily comprehended… [After all,] Christ and His apostles taught the people in the language best known to them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Amen.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In other words, if they allowed the common people to have the Bible, we could then challenge the Priests, the Papacy, the government, etc. That is why the Bible was banned.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]... and is still being banned in many places.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In summary, believers are called "kings and priests" and a "royal priesthood" as a reflection of their privileged status as heirs to the kingdom of the Almighty God and of the Lamb. Because of this privileged closeness with God, no other earthly mediator is necessary. Second, believers are called priests because salvation is not merely “fire insurance,” escape from hell. Rather, believers are called by God to serve Him by offering up spiritual sacrifices, i.e., being a people zealous for good works. As priests of the living God, we are all to give praise to the One who has given us the great gift of His Son's sacrifice on our behalf, and in response, to share this wonderful grace with others.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Praise his holy name![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In other words, I don't need a veil mender to come to God. I can come to God without a priest. I don't have to speak to God's butler. I can come to God myself.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Thank you, Jesus![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The priesthood felt threatened so that is why they banned the Bible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The wanna-be scholars are afraid of losing their status and their stuff:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.... Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. (John chap. 11)[/SIZE]

 

[ccfromsc]

OK Soujourner name the Bible Translation with PROOF that uses Wescott-Hort as its basis? None. Some may reference them, but that is it. Do you even realize that some of the so-called manuscripts that the KJV used were from the RCC?

The Puritans etc. that came to America for religious freedom detested the KJV. They thought it was a "devilish" trick of the Crown of England. They used the Geneva bible and Bishop's Bible which BTW is an AUTHORIZED VERSION of the Crown of England.

The KJV you have today is NOT the same as was done in 1611. There have been revisions. Even whole books removed. But the disparaging remarks of modern translations are getting to be awful.

 

[StanJ]

I'm sure it is very clear to those who know God and move in the Holy Spirit, that He wants us to move on in knowledge, and not be stuck in the middle of the 17th century's understanding of Greek and the English translations thereof.

 

[Chuckt]

The stat was;
62 percent of American adults own a King James Version Bible and 82 percent of those who read the Bible at least once a month own a KJV.

It doesn't say 62% read the KJB and it doesn't say that the 82% of those who read more than once a month read the KJB. This stat is about those who own a KJB and I do.
I didn't say or imply that I care if anyone reads the KJB or that it infringes on my rights, or that it bothers me. This is all in your lack of understanding in what I wrote, or your deliberate equivocation of it. You should try not to project onto someone's writing, but read it as it is written.

I also didn't say I didn't read the Bible more than once a month, I said I read it AT LEAST once a month. In fact I read it EVERY day.


It can only be forgiven if they acknowledge it Shirley, and most of them WON'T. IMO it is more an issue of being legalistic than it is of being small minded. God can expand our minds, but as is evident in the Bible, legalism is the bane of Christianity, as it is opposed to a personal relationship with God.

King James outnumbers the modern translations.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.
The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.
In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html?paging=off

I'm sure it is very clear to those who know God and move in the Holy Spirit, that He wants us to move on in knowledge, and not be stuck in the middle of the 17th century's understanding of Greek and the English translations thereof.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; - 1 Corinthians 1:27

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/1-27.htm

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

OK Soujourner name the Bible Translation with PROOF that uses Wescott-Hort as its basis? None. Some may reference them, but that is it.

Rather, all modern translations “use W-H as its basis.” Two spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, changed the traditional Greek text in well over eight thousand places using the Vaticanus manuscript and other corrupt texts. In 1881, this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. All modern versions, including your NIV, are their product.

It takes much time, research and effort to bring the truth to bear. But I will do it now for this first question of yours. What you may then do with the truth of the matter will be up to you; but be aware, as you are now accountable.

The body of standard Christian reference works affirm Westcott and Hort’s pivotal and powerful role in this war of words. Scanning the major works will document the singularity and paramountcy of their role.

The following is but a small sampling of the total documentation available on the subject, lest I be here all night.

John Kohlenberger, spokesperson for Zondervan (publisher of the NASB, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, and RSV), is author of a Hebrew/NIV Interlinear, as well as, Words About the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible. He discloses:

Westcott and Hort...all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present...have adopted their basic approach...[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text.1

He goes on to salute Westcott’s, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, saying, “This century old classic remains a standard.”2 Christians may not return the salute, but ask why the work of esoterics are “standards” and “classics” for the body of Christ.

Baker Book House, publisher of half-a-dozen modern translations, also prints a bible selection guide entitled, The King James Version Debate. Author D. A. Carson admits:

[T]he theories of Westcott and Hort...[are] almost universally accepted today...It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others. Subsequent textual critical work accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars...hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt.3

The error of their textual theories and their recent abandonment by many scholars, in spite of Carson’s last comment, can be discussed in another thread. In spite of this increasing elbowroom, their revised Greek text is still almost a mirror image of that used to translate the NIV, NASB, and all other new versions. Dr. E. F. Hills, Princeton and Harvard scholar, impresses, the “New International Version...follows the critical Westcott and Hort text.”4

Philip W. Comfort’s recent Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament concedes:

But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory...this had troubled certain textual scholars.5

Even abbreviated histories of the canon, in reference works like Halley’s Bible Handbook and Young’s Concordance observe,

“For the English speaking world the work of B. F. Westcott has proved of abiding worth.”6

“The New Testament Westcott and Hort Greek texts, which, in the main, are the exact original Bible words...”7

“The textual theories of W-H underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism.”8

Scholarly books, articles and critical editions of the Greek New Testament are slowly abandoning the readings of Westcott and Hort in their ‘Newest’ Greek texts. Yet the pews are piled high with the W-H offerings like the NIV, NASB and Living Bible.

Wilbur N. Pickering, author of The Identity of the New Testament Text, reveals:

The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. (Colwell) The two most popular manual editions of the Greek text today, Nestle’s-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H text. Why is this? Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the death blow [to the KJV and the Greek text which was used for the previous 1880 years]. Subsequent scholarship has tended to recognize Hort’s mistake. The W-H critical theory is erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it [Nestle’s-Aland UBS, etc.], as well as those versions based on such texts [NIV, NASB, Good News for Modern Man, NEB, L.B. etc.].9

H. C. Hoskier’s A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelism 604 ((London: David Nutt, 1890), Introduction, pp. cxv-cxvi) and Codex B and Its Allies -- A Study and Indictment (2 vols. London: Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1914) notes:

The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as ‘the true text’, and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text...These foundations must be demolished.

Alfred Martin (former Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago) says:

[M]any people, even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is...accept the labors of those two scholars without question...an amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself: many of the textbooks, books of bible interpretation, innumerable secondary works go on repeating the Westcott and Hort dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken, even in the opinion of former Hortians.

The Westcott and Hort “new” Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and other modern versions was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.” (Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1903), p. 252.)

Westcott and Hort were New Age necromancers, spiritualists, and admitted heretics. Relevant documentation from their biographies and personal correspondence has been posted in these forums previously. You can verify those shocking facts for yourself here.


Footnotes:

1. John R. Kohlenberger, Words About the Word (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), p. 42.
2. Words About the Word, p. 34.
3. D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 41, 75.
4. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1979), p. 229.
5. Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishing, Inc., 1990), p. 21.
6. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 18.
7. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 747.
8. J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishing Company, 1964), p. 78.
9. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), pp. 38., 42, 96, 90.
.

 

[StanJ]

OK Soujourner name the Bible Translation with PROOF that uses Wescott-Hort as its basis? None. Some may reference them, but that is it. Do you even realize that some of the so-called manuscripts that the KJV used were from the RCC?

She won`t be able to, as all the modern English translations ( those since 1980 ) use the Novum Testamentum Graece aka Nestle-Aland Greek texts.

King James outnumbers the modern translations.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html?paging=off

The NIV has been the best selling Bible for the last 25 years.

The report this article is based on is HERE. There are some interesting anomalies in it. You have to read it for yourself to understand where it is coming from, but it does not state that the KJV outnumbers the modern translations. I did find it interesting though, that 79% of the respondents said their congregations do NOT encourage the use of the NIV. I also found a problem with the stats as far as Catholics are concerned. They are 25% of the American population, and as this report states that 48% of Americans read the Bible at least once a year, then a ¼ of those are Catholics and they DON`T read the KJV.
In any event, it is far more likely that those who actually buy a Bible will read it and as the vast majority of Bibles sold over the last 25 years are NOT KJV, or a lot of Americans are wasting their money buying Bible they don`t read. What`s a little baffling to me is that 15% of those that read the Bible in this report, don`t believe it is the inerrant Word of God, and 50% don`t believe it is the inspired word of God. IMO this report is seriously flawed. It might explain why so many read the KJV, as they don`t consider it to BE inspired by God but just nice Elizabethan writing.
Here`s an interesting factoid.... ``The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association reports the NIV is still the best-selling Bible translation overall, though specific Bibles in other translations are outselling NIV Bibles.``

 

[sojourner4Christ]

She won`t be able to,...

I’ve already done it in my previous post.

...all the modern English translations ( those since 1980 ) use the Novum Testamentum Graece aka Nestle-Aland Greek texts.

Of course they do! As I intimated earlier, there is much more that could be revealed in this expose`. We'll resolve StanJ's apparent misunderstanding now, as well.

In short, today's modern bible versions (NIV, NASB, et al ) are based on the U.B.S. (United Bible Society) and Nestle/Aland texts, which, in turn, are based on the corrupt Wescott & Hort “new” Greek text of 1881.

The term “spiritualist” was ascribed to Wescott by his son. It was a thirty-year project for Westcott and Hort. Upon the release in 1881 of their 'New' Greek text and Revised Version, Hort's son says:

"[T]he work which had gone on now for nearly thirty years was perforce brought to a conclusion..." (Life of Hort, Vol II, p. 145).

This "new" Westcott and Hort Greek text was cloned for the following generation in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle. In 1927 his son Erwin became its warden. He confessed: "Nevertheless, of course, my father knew quite well that a certain one-sidedness adhered to his text..." (Novum Testamentum Graece, eds. Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland, NY: American Bible Society, p. 60).

In 1950, custody was transferred to Kurt Aland, who with the help of Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren, today recommit allegiance to the Wescott-Hort text type.

Few know that the four wheels driving the current U.B.S. Greek New Testament -- Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgren -- were being steered by a fifth wheel -- in the driver’s seat -- Italy’s own Carlo M. Martini. His editorship is revealed only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic. NIV and NASB outside, Catholic inside.

In this committee’s book, The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, it gives a behind the scenes view of their work while admitting, “B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort’s...edition...was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies edition.” The charge that the new Greek text, and consequently the new versions, are Roman Catholic is confirmed by the church itself, for they have stopped using the Latin Vulgate as a basis of translation and now use the Martini, Metzger, Aland, Black, and Wikgren text. Now both Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus minority Greek text. (The Nestle text and United Bible Society text are now identical.)

A verbatim translation of the Nestle-Aland text, with all of its deletions, would shock even the most liberal reader and could never be sold as a ‘New Testament.’ [The closest actual translations of it are the super-liberal NEV, TEV, NRSV and Catholic Bibles, all of which use many of Nestle’s manuscript D readings.] Consequently, other versions which are based on Nestle’s, such as the NASB, ‘borrow’ some ‘Majority’ readings from the Textus Receptus in order to be marketable (e.g. John 7:53 and 8:1-11). Nestle’s own statement, in his preface, cautions the reader that it is not the ‘Traditional’ Greek text but a “Kind of New Textus Receptus.” (New Directions in New Testament Study, pp. 221, 222.) Its advocates even caution the unlettered, who would take such a text and pronounce, “The Greek says...” For example, Philip Comfort, collaborator on The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament-NRSV yields:

“This text is by no means ‘inspired’ or ‘infallible’ as many scholars will readily attest. In fact, some scholars have openly criticized UBS3/NA26 as trying to gain the reputation of being the new ‘Textus Receptus’; and other scholars are discouraged that this new text still looks so much like the Westcott-Hort text.” (The Agony of Deceit, p. 74).

Of the UBS3/NA26, other researchers conclude:

“[It is] the Greek text pieced together.” (David Otis Fuller, Which Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, p. 146).

“[T]he edition Nestle-Aland is clearly non-Byzantine.” (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 360).

“It is of utmost importance to the true text of the Bible to oppose their minority Greek text and to support the traditional Greek text which basically is the text underlying the King James Version of the New Testament.” (Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, pp. xvii, 8).

Changes in both the Nestle’s text and the critical apparatus have been made over the years. The NASB is based loosely on Nestle’s 23rd edition (1959), but the NASB Greek Interlinear is marketed with Nestle’s 21st edition (1951). In the recent Nestle’s twenty-sixth edition (1979) the chameleon becomes a cobra with a whopping 712 changes in the Greek text. These drastic changes were a response to the cry of scholars who saw the mounting evidence of the papyri discoveries stacking up on the side of the KJV. Consequently, nearly 500 of these changes were ‘white flags’, retreating back to the pre-Westcott and Hort Textus Receptus readings. Now every third page reflects some sort of back-to-the King James Version reading. This about-face leaves Greek-o-philes footless, often armed only with their 1951 NASB-Nestle’s Interlinear.

Resting on this Achilles heel, their case is further crippled by the new Introduction to Nestle’s 26th edition. It no longer boasts of Theta, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Caesarean families of manuscripts. Verses which had previously been discarded based on ‘conflation’, assimilation’ or ‘harmonization’ suddenly pop back into the text. “The body of the Lord Jesus” even pops in, in Luke 24:3. “The age of Westcott and Hort is definitely over,” the Introduction says. (Which Bible, p. 3).

Much like Nestle’s dramatic turn around, the UBS third edition was forced to make 500 changes from its second edition. Since there were no manuscript discoveries in that interim, Pickering observes, “It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are guessing.” The New International Version (NIV) followed the UBS first edition (1966), thereby missing hundreds of updates.

Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version. The King James Bible Society (527 Benjulyn Rd., Cantonment, Florida) keeps a list of good foreign Bibles and missionaries in agreement with the KJV. People looking around in their church think everyone uses an NIV or another new version. That may be true within the context of their limited vision, but when looking back at the history of the church around the world, you will see that those 64,000 missing words in the NIV have not been missing through the history of the church.

StanJ is correct about this fact:

The NIV has been the best selling Bible for the last 25 years.

On the worldly level, it's all about '$elling.' But on the spiritual level: Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. (Luke 16:15).

 

[StanJ]

I would suggest anyone who wants to study the FACTS of the WH Greek NT, read the following from Dr. Daniel Wallace, one of THE preeminent Greek scholars of our day.

https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

 

[Chuckt]

I would suggest anyone who wants to study the FACTS of the WH Greek NT, read the following from Dr. Daniel Wallace, on of THE preeminent Greek scholars of our day.

https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations

I have encountered a few articles by Bible dot org that have given me pause and I have no compelling reason to buy their Net bible because of some of the things I've seen.

Sometimes education can get in the way of belief.

 

[StanJ]

I have encountered a few articles by Bible dot org that have given me pause and I have no compelling reason to buy their Net bible because of some of the things I've seen.

Sometimes education can get in the way of belief.

Nice, slag the site with innuendo but provide no proof. Give me a break.

 

[ccfromsc]

Ok Sojourner,

That reply is bull. For one your quotes did not show proof. Just a statement from a KJV Only site. Another is how they were chopped to portray out of context what you wanted them to say. Still NO bible uses the Westcott-Hort as the basis for their translations. They reference it. Now what was it they did with the manuscripts? They merged them into one in the greek to make in their opinion an all around copy for everyone. Even the KJV did that. One of them was a priest in the Anglican church. Later on a Bishop if I remember right. The KJV actually followed the Latin Vulgate more than anything. But wait! That is RCC!!

What is the best is that you avoided what I said about the KJV. Why did they take out whole books from it? Why was it revised over 25 times? IF the KJV was so "pure" as you have stated, why did it need to be "revised?"

 

[StanJ]

Ok Sojourner,

That reply is bull. For one your quotes did not show proof. Just a statement from a KJV Only site. Another is how they were chopped to portray out of context what you wanted them to say. Still NO bible uses the Westcott-Hort as the basis for their translations. They reference it. Now what was it they did with the manuscripts? They merged them into one in the greek to make in their opinion an all around copy for everyone. Even the KJV did that. One of them was a priest in the Anglican church. Later on a Bishop if I remember right. The KJV actually followed the Latin Vulgate more than anything. But wait! That is RCC!!

What is the best is that you avoided what I said about the KJV. Why did they take out whole books from it? Why was it revised over 25 times? IF the KJV was so "pure" as you have stated, why did it need to be "revised?"

Hope you don't mind if I say..."told ya so." (have her on ignore so I don't read her answers.)

 

[Chuckt]

Nice, slag the site with innuendo but provide no proof. Give me a break.

And maybe you think that everyone there is perfect, has perfect beliefs and has never sinned?

Do you think that everyone will agree with everyone on what sin is or what beliefs are sin?

My pastor taught at a Christian college and couldn't stop one professor from donating Mormon books to the Christian school library because it is called "Academic Freedom" and professors do stuff like that. One of my relatives works at a Christian college and some of the pastoral students get caught plagiarizing. In fact, my relative thinks they are the worst.

I can provide proof on a separate post as to not derail this topic but I may be a little slow at getting around to it. But you don't have to put in a dig because I didn't provide it.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

That reply is bull. For one your quotes did not show proof. Just a statement from a KJV Only site.

I don’t know what site you’ve been visiting, but the documentation I posted, citing many sources, is a no-brainer. I’ve clearly met the burden of proof. Conversely, all you’ve given us is the usual preemptive attempt at dismissal, of which you have failed to answer the documentation -- even becoming vulgar in your denial i.e. “bull.”

So what have we learned so far? We learned that Westcott and Hort are admitted heretics, necromancers, and spiritualists, who ‘edited’ their ‘new’ Greek text. We learned that the corrupt Westcott and Hort text is the basis for all modern versions. We learned that the Westcott and Hort novelty is beginning to wear off, although much damage has already been done.

...they were chopped to portray out of context what you wanted them to say.

lol This is a very tired and common hollow tactic used by those who cannot defend the damning documentation -- so common, in fact, it’s listed everywhere as a Hail Mary defensive action to toss out there when all else has failed. You yourself have not even bothered to research, to verify, the copious documentation I’ve posted -- you cannot afford to!

In short, with your non-reply, you’ve lost this “debate,” hands down.

If you have another question, post it and we’ll answer it. The rest of your post is nothing more than a gripe session -- void of any documentation.

 

[StanJ]

And maybe you think that everyone there is perfect, has perfect beliefs and has never sinned?

Do you think that everyone will agree with everyone on what sin is or what beliefs are sin?

My pastor taught at a Christian college and couldn't stop one professor from donating Mormon books to the Christian school library because it is called "Academic Freedom" and professors do stuff like that. One of my relatives works at a Christian college and some of the pastoral students get caught plagiarizing. In fact, my relative thinks they are the worst.

I can provide proof on a separate post as to not derail this topic but I may be a little slow at getting around to it. But you don't have to put in a dig because I didn't provide it.

Try staying on track Chuck. The above foray is just a rabbit trail. Professor Wallace's rep doesn't need your approval. He has it from his peers and unless you can demonstrably show you are a peer of his then you really can't expect us to accept your doubts based on hearsay.
Yes I do have to rebuke you for what you wrote, as you didn't support it. IF you can show what I posted is wrong then do so.

 

[ccfromsc]

Why do you avoid what I have said about the KJV? Please answer that.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

Why do you avoid what I have said about the KJV? Please answer that.

If you have another question (rather than an accusation or presumption) about the AV or the AV text-type, then please ask it -- one question at a time, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.

 

[ccfromsc]

I stated that earlier. You seem to remember only what you want to.

Which KJV are you using? The 1611 has been modified quite a few times. In fact no one uses the 1611 at all today. Do you use the Oxford or Cambridge? Why did revisions to the KJV add verses, delete whole books? Do you believe in the KJV word for word as it says? Why do you avoid the "preface" of the KJV in which the team of translators state to seek other bible translations? Why did the translators for the KJV use the Latin Vulgate for much of their reference?

 

[Chuckt]

I stated that earlier. You seem to remember only what you want to.

Which KJV are you using? The 1611 has been modified quite a few times. In fact no one uses the 1611 at all today. Do you use the Oxford or Cambridge? Why did revisions to the KJV add verses, delete whole books? Do you believe in the KJV word for word as it says? Why do you avoid the "preface" of the KJV in which the team of translators state to seek other bible translations? Why did the translators for the KJV use the Latin Vulgate for much of their reference?

Yes, people do use the KJV 1611 today. It is for sale:

http://www.christianbook.com/kjv-1611-bible-deluxe-edition/9781598562118/pd/562118

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/kjv-1611?store=allproducts&keyword=kjv+1611

And I think Barnes and Noble has a replica of the ones that some of the Reformers used. I'm not sure if this is the one or not:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/barnes-noble-leatherbound-classics-the-holy-bible-gustave-dore/1106658795?ean=9781435125391

A lot of Baptist Churches still use the King James.

Calvary Chapel uses the King James and there are over 1500 of those Churches in the United States and that number may not be accurate because they keep growing.
http://christianity.about.com/od/Calvary-Chapel/a/Calvary-Chapel.htm

I know believers in the UK (and I live in America) who read the King James still.

The Apocrypha is not the word of God so the question is why they were added to God's word in the first place.

I have a King James and it has a binder and pull out pages with probably two inch margins so I can write my notes. I bought it so that I could teach and write my notes in it but I have gone digital instead and I haven't thrown out my books.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

I stated that earlier. You seem to remember only what you want to.

Which KJV are you using? The 1611 has been modified quite a few times. In fact no one uses the 1611 at all today. Do you use the Oxford or Cambridge? Why did revisions to the KJV add verses, delete whole books? Do you believe in the KJV word for word as it says? Why do you avoid the "preface" of the KJV in which the team of translators state to seek other bible translations? Why did the translators for the KJV use the Latin Vulgate for much of their reference?

You've posted six presumptuous questions and several presumptuous statements.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will repeat my previous reply to you:

If you have another question (rather than an accusation or presumption) about the AV or the AV text-type, then please ask it -- one question at a time, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.

Chuckt said:

The Apocrypha is not the word of God so the question is why they were added to God's word in the first place.

Some point to the inclusion of the Apocryphal Old Testament books in Bibles. All pure Bibles viewed these books as non-canonical and said so in their preface.

The Wycliffe Bible warned in its Prologue that only those books written in Hebrew were canonical. Others, it said,

“...shall be set among Apocrypha, that is, without authority of belief...[that] be not of the authority of bible ancient Hebrew...

[R]eceiveth not them among holy Scripture...that be not ancient Hebrew and be not of the number of holy writ;

[T]hey aught to be cast far away...for me doubteth the truth thereof” (Prologue, pp. 1, 2).

Wycliffe said that when the “Word of God is not heard, spiritual death broods over all” (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Wyclif, pp. 464, 466).

“[H]e designated the Bible as the one authority for believers, and so teaching, traditions, bulls, symbols, and censures go by the board as far as they do not rest on Scripture.”

Tyndale and Coverdale did not approve of the Apocrypha. King James, himself did not approve of it.

Tyndale would not translate the Apocrypha. Coverdale removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament scriptures. He prefaced his intertestamental section saying, these books “are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrew...[and] are not judged among the doctors to be of like reputation with the other scripture...And the chief cause thereof is this: there be many places in them, that seem to be repugnant unto the open and manifest truth in the other books of the Bible” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 110).

Rogers’ Thomas Matthew’s Bible said, “the books called Apocrypha...are not found in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 116).

Samuel Ward was among a few who were assigned the task of translating the Apocrypha. King James I said:

“As to the Apocryphal books, I omit them because I am no papist.” (Basilikon Doron ).

Most Christians shared the King’s desire for a Bible without the bulky Apocrypha. As early as 1612 printers (London: Barker), anxious to supply the large demand, printed Bibles without the appendage of the unnecessary Apocrypha. They were following the pattern of the quarto edition of the Great Bible (ed. 1549), some copies of the 1599 Geneva, a quarto edition of the Bishops’ Bible, dated 1577, and many personal hand-sized earlier Bibles. Antiquarian booksellers today offer for sale numerous early copies of the KJV without the Apocrypha (e.g. 1612, 1629 (Norton and Bill “Printers to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty”), 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682; Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books, Catalogue 23 et al,; TBS, No. 31).

The Apocrypha is a series of books, written between B.C. 250 and B.C. 100, which exemplify the “superstitious” “traditions,” “imaginations,” and “commandments of men” which Jesus and Paul warned against (Acts 17:22, Matt. 15:9, Rom. 1:21, Gal. 1:14). The Apocrypha characterizes the “cultural, ethical, and religious background” which surrounded the time of Christ. Even Princeton’s Bruce Metzger writes:

“This body of literature also supplies important information regarding the life and thoughts of the Jewish people during a significant period of their history, namely the period just prior to the emergence of Christianity. By becoming acquainted with these books, therefore, one will be better able to understand the political, ethical, and religious background of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, NY: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. viii).

For the same reason, current Study Bibles, like the Scofield Reference Bible (“From Malachi to Matthew”) and Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (“Between the Testaments”) include a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, explaining the events, history and beliefs of the intertestamental period. The KJV translators, like early Bibles, simply included the real thing. No one today thinks that Scofield’s notes are a part of the Bible, just as no true Christian in 1611 thought that the Apocrypha was a part of the Bible. Bible Prologues stated ‘up front’ that the Apocrypha was not scripture. The Great Bible’s Prologue stated that the Apocrypha was not “found in the Hebrew” Bible. Wycliffe’s Prologue said that the Apocrypha “is, without authority.” Luther’s Bible (1534 ed.) stated that the Apocrypha is “not to be considered as equal to Holy Scriptures.” The early Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha is “no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” The KJV translators said that the Apocrypha was not scripture because it was not written in Hebrew, nor ever accepted by the Jews or early Christians, nor ever mentioned by Jesus Christ -- because it detailed those “superstitious” “traditions” which Jesus and Paul warned about.

Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bibles for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which shed light on just exactly what “superstitions” and “traditions” were being followed by the Jews). Even today Bibles include concordances, dictionaries, notes, histories, commentaries, and cross references. No one mistakes these for being equal to the scriptures. In 1611 and before, few people had a collection of books, most owned only one book, the Bible. Binding other materials within it served a practical need. Even today it is less expensive to print and purchase one book of 1200 pages, than two books each having 600 pages.

Unlike pure early English Bibles, such as the KJV, 1611, which separated the Apocrypha from the Bible, the corrupt Catholic bibles (e.g. New Jerusalem Bible) and their manuscripts (e.g. Vaticanus from which the TNIV, ESV, HCSB NIV, and NASB are translated) intersperse these corrupt books among those of the Bible. Rather than including them as a warning of exactly what “commandments of men” Jesus was warning about, these corrupt versions placed Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees after the book of Nehemiah; they placed Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus following the Song of Solomon and Baruch following Lamentations. The Song of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are included in the book of Daniel. Why? The Catholic church has adopted the “traditions of men” expounded in these books. Some of the heresies included in these books include the following taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:

1.) “[A]lmsgiving expiates sins” and “almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:9).

2.) Purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

3.) “[T]orments and the rack...irons” for the “disobedient” (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-29).

4.) The immaculate conception of Mary; reincarnation and transmigration of souls for New Agers and Hindus (Wisdom 8:19, 20).

5.) Monism and pantheism. “For your imperishable spirit is in everything!” (Wisdom 12:1). Even new versions changes, like the NKJV’s “God is spirit” (John 4:24) echo the New Age concept that god is in “everything.”

Since Catholic bibles include the Apocrypha as scripture, it becomes vital that Bibles no longer include it, even as history.

--Thanks, again, to my sister in Christ!