I'll assume they are and let you assume they are not.
Someone with a bad understanding told you that. I am certain you could not have come up with such a conclusion on your own.
Why I support the KJV Bible
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
Sorry, but there's no specific mention of any particular Bible version in that article.
In other words, confirmation bias much?
I note your cut and paste of the opinions of "David Daniels" (whoever he is).
But please... by all means...show me where the word "Authorized" is found in this part?
No one is disputing that King James issued a command for the Anglican Church to create (yet another) English translation. King James did so for two reasons. He wanted to appease the Puritan faction of the Church of England who was pressing for doctrinal reform, and there were two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy: (citations upon request).
Here, by the way, is the actual title page. Now where is the phrase "Majesty's Special Command"? Please note it says "commandment." So if your source can make this kind of elementary mistake... seriously? That guy's your authority?
You shouldn't. It has factual errors. One of which is this claim:
Again, the word authorized with regard to the KJV Bible translation cannot be found prior to Twells, Leonard (1731). A critical examination of the late new text and version of the New Testament ... Part I. London: R.Gosling.
So where did the word "authorized" come from?
According to Daniell (LINK) in 1662, the biblical text used in the Book of Common Prayer, which had been sourced from the Great Bible, was replaced with the KJV text as authorized by an Act of Parliament.
In addition,
The title page of the KJV carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches", and F. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised by order in council", but no record of the authorisation survives "because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19".
Finally,
The term "authorized" is somewhat of a misnomer because the text itself was never formally "authorized", nor were English parish churches ever ordered to procure copies of it.
- Greenslade, S. L. (1963). "English Versions of the Bible, 1525–1611". In Greenslade, S. L. (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume III: The West From Reformation to Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 141–75.
The above is important, because this claim that the KJV was ordered by the King to be the ONLY Bible used by English speaking peoples is a plain lie.
Now as my time is running out for the moment, I will withdraw my claim that the word "authorized" was placed on the cover of the KJV by the printer, since I cannot readily find my source. (And I'm beginning now to suspect that it was Scrivener who did this, but I'll double check.)
Hugh Broughton, who was the most highly regarded English scholar of Hebrew in his time had been excluded from the panel of translators because of his utterly uncongenial temperament, issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version. He especially criticized the translators' rejection of word-for-word equivalence and stated that "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".
- Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-84747-7.
I'll post more when I have more time.Rhema
(You haven't posted elsewhere under the name of Roger, have you?)
That sounds like the dysfunctional liberal ideology of everyone having a right to their own personal Truth.
But in truth, only a fool is entitled to his own opinion.
A wise man will have an informed opinion, and no one is entitled to be ignorant.
Rhema
You can say that again.
Well, on groundhog day, we do tend to stick our heads out and see if the sun is still there.
But about two decades or so ago, the field of study was been dramatically impacted by the work of Danial Wallace, who has undertaken to scan each and every fragment of Greek New Testament manuscripts.
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org
Right Divider
Body part
Water baptism has no place in the body of Christ.
???
You appreciate the fact that words were added to the scriptures where they did not exist to begin with?
(Fascinating.)
There are quite a number of lies in that article, marke.
Here's one:
Vaudois is the French word for the Waldensians, a sect that did not exist until the 1200's.
Waldenses, also spelled Valdenses, also called Waldensians, French Vaudois, Italian Valdesi, members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, the devotees of which sought to follow Christ in poverty and simplicity. The movement is sometimes viewed as an early forerunner of the Reformation for its rejection of various Catholic tenets.
Waldenses | Description, History, & Beliefs | Britannica
Waldenses, members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, the devotees of which sought to follow Christ in poverty and simplicity. In modern times the name has been applied to members of a Protestant church that formed when remnants of the earlier movement became Swiss...
It's truly insane to insist that a sect that did not exist until the 1200's wrote a Latin version of the Bible in the year 200 AD.
Why do you listen to insane people?
Rhema
Also:
The Lie from your article:
The truth:
- From a letter published in The Guardian on 27 May 1863, as quoted by Elliott, J.K. (1982) in Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, p. 16
The writer of the article said this:
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner.
I assume the writer is suggesting that all versions, including the KJV, are faithful, unaltered, unedited, or accurate translations of God's Word.
However, the writer also said this:
Of course, inerrancy can only be applied to the original manuscripts, not to the copies of the manuscripts.
From that statement, I assume the writer also believes that the Bibles we have today are not inerrant. I do not share the writer's low opinion of God's word in the hands of God's people today.
The KJV picked up the unofficial title "Authorized Version" many hundreds of years ago. I agree that the title was not something God attached to the KJV.
The fact remains whether you think it is a matter of unsupported opinion or not, people either hold the KJV Bible as special to them or not, and choices like that cannot be dismissed as wrong.
Not everyone who examines old manuscripts knows how to distinguish between the good and the bad.But about two decades or so ago, the field of study was been dramatically impacted by the work of Danial Wallace, who has undertaken to scan each and every fragment of Greek New Testament manuscripts.
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
Catholics believe in infant baptism and the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism has seemed to have influenced the work of translators who shared Catholic doctrinal beliefs.
I do appreciate the fact the KJV translators were faithful to italicize the words they added for our benefit and encouragement. I'm sure the NKJV translators added their marginal notes for noble reasons as well.
Modern leftists are rewriting US history from a black racist point of view. I believe their views are flawed and their version of history is also flawed. You claim the Valdois did not exist until the 12th century. Not all historians agree. According to Britannica, the reign of the House of Valois began in 1328 in an area already known as Valois.There are quite a number of lies in that article, marke.
Here's one:
Vaudois is the French word for the Waldensians, a sect that did not exist until the 1200's.
Waldenses, also spelled Valdenses, also called Waldensians, French Vaudois, Italian Valdesi, members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, the devotees of which sought to follow Christ in poverty and simplicity. The movement is sometimes viewed as an early forerunner of the Reformation for its rejection of various Catholic tenets.Waldenses | Description, History, & Beliefs | Britannica
Waldenses, members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, the devotees of which sought to follow Christ in poverty and simplicity. In modern times the name has been applied to members of a Protestant church that formed when remnants of the earlier movement became Swiss...www.britannica.com
It's truly insane to insist that a sect that did not exist until the 1200's wrote a Latin version of the Bible in the year 200 AD.
Why do you listen to insane people?
The House of Valois was a branch of the Capetian family, for it was descended from Charles of Valois, whose Capetian father, King Philip III, awarded him the county of Valois in 1285. Charles’s son and successor, Philip, count of Valois, became king of France as Philip VI in 1328, and thus began the Valois dynasty.
According to Wikipedia, the people of Valois descended from the Vermandois whose lineage dates to from before 484. Historical counts are not inerrant like the Bible.
- Leodegar, Count of Vermandois (c. 484).
I believe the Sinaiticus was a forgery written for profit and passed upon the world in a scam by men motivated by fame and profit. There are many eyewitness accounts from that period that support that belief.
Well you know what they say about assuming things, because that's not what he said or is suggesting at all.
It's not just a belief, marke. It's reality. NOT ONE of the Bibles in existence today are inerrant. That would imply perfection where humans are involved, and no human is perfect, let alone however many hundreds over the years who transcribed and copied the Bible. Someone is bound to make an error here or there.
The one with the low opinion of God's word here is you, marke, which makes you wrong!
You think God is incapable of writing a book that can survive being modified in any way at all! You're like the calvinists who believe that if God changes in any way, He'll break, but instead of it being God, it's His Word!
The fact of the matter is that it's been copied, it's been transcribed, it's been translated. It's been copied some more! Those are all changes! And yet, it's still consistent enough that we know it's His word!
Again I point out, as Will Duffy did, that the very fact that all of the texts agree as much as they do, to within 1-2% of each other, should be cause to REJOICE that God is capable of writing a book that, even with minor errors, has withstood the test of time, and that the consistency even with errors is evidence of it's reliability as God's word!
They are consistent enough that we can chalk the vast majority of inconsistencies up to copy errors!
God has indeed preserved His word, just not in the way you want Him to have.
Sure they can.
And you think you do?
I'm simply trying to get you to provide (which you STILL have not done) an example of Greek texts that contradict each other in some meaningful way.
You keep offering examples that DO NOT contradict each other in a meaningful way, because those examples do not affect the overarching plot of the Bible, only minor details. In other words, THEY DON'T CHANGE THE STORY!
They didn't italicize the headings you hold so dear.
And you criticize the NKJV for adding a word or two and not making mention of it.
Hypocrite!
Why wouldn't they?
It's an honest thing to do.
You have a lot of opinions, but not many, as Rhema said, informed ones.
More elephant hurling.
Can we say the word of God we preach is inerrant, and if so how can we be sure if we do not have inerrancy in our Bibles?
Jesus quoted from the OT scriptures that were passed down by copyists for hundreds or thousands of years, yet I believe Jesus referred to the Scriptures He quoted as inerrant.