Why I support the KJV Bible

[marke]

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.

I cannot provide you with Greek texts. All I can do is quote Greek scholars. If you think the scholars i quote are wrong then you should refute them.

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!

If you want to believe there are no meaningful differences between the Alexandrian texts and the Textus Receptus then you can believe that if you like, but I do not agree.

They didn't italicize the headings you hold so dear.

The headings are italicized in my KJV Bible.

And you criticize the NKJV for adding a word or two and not making mention of it.

Hypocrite!

You claimed the NKJV italicizes words they add that are not found in the original manuscripts. I pointed out that sometimes they neglect to italicize added words or phrases and you call me a hypocrite?

 

[JudgeRightly]

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?

No. We CAN say that we preach the word of God, and that the message contained within the Bible is correct, despite the errors the Bible contains, BECAUSE of the fact that God wrote a robust book that can survive a few errors creeping in.

Inerrancy is a different matter altogether, though.

Jesus quoted from the OT scriptures

Yes, He did,

that were passed down by copyists for hundreds or thousands of years, yet I believe Jesus referred to the Scriptures He quoted as inerrant.

More unsubstantiated opinions. Don't you have anything other than your opinion?

Newsflash, they weren't. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, which was created in the inter-testament period. They weren't "passed down for hundreds of years," let alone thousands. Moses started writing in the 15th Century B.C., and Malachi was completed around 400 B.C. The septuagint was created within the 400 years between the completion of Malachi and Jesus' birth.

 

[marke]

You have a lot of opinions, but not many, as Rhema said, informed ones.
More elephant hurling.

I have studied the history of the Sinaiticus and have read many accounts that do not all agree. I read things like this and have found them persuasive in light of everything else I have read.

Codex Sinaiticus (jesus-is-lord.com)

(the following is excerpted from, Deception 45: Modern "Biblical Scholarship")

Some people don't believe that all of those "older and more accurate" Greek manuscripts floating around today are authentic documents. [Note: The emphases in the following sections ours.] When Codex Sinaiticus came out in the 1800s, Constantine Simonides, a well-known forger, claimed to have forged Codex Sinaiticus himself--

On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he [Constantine Simonides] claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was 'the one poor work of his youth'. According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex.

Constantine Simonides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides says this of Constantine Simonides--

Constantine Simonides (1820-1867), palaeographer, dealer of icons, man with extensive learning, knowledge of manuscripts, miraculous calligraphy. He surpassed his contemporaries in literary ability. According to opinion of paleographers, HE WAS THE MOST VERSATILE FORGER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

These manuscripts often seem to pop up in Roman Catholic edifices like monasteries. Where did Simonides spend his time? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides--

Simonides lived in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he acquired some of the biblical manuscripts that he later sold. He produced a lot of manuscripts ascribed to Hellenistic and early Byzantine periods. He forged a number of documents and manuscripts and CLAIMED THEY WERE THE ORIGINALS of the Gospel of Mark, as well as original manuscripts of poems of Homer. HE SOLD SOME OF THESE FORGERIES to the King of Greece. Greek scholars exposed his forgeries quickly and he left Greece and TRAVELED FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY WITH HIS FORGERIES. He visited England between 1853 and 1855 and other European countries, and his literary activity was extraordinary...Some of his works were published in Moscow, Odessa, in England...and in Germany. He also wrote many other works which were never published. From 1843 until 1856...ALL OVER EUROPE HE OFFERED FOR SALE FRAUDULENT MANUSCRIPTS PURPORTING TO BE OF ANCIENT ORIGIN. HE CREATED "A CONSIDERABLE SENSATION BY PRODUCING QUANTITIES OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS PROFESSING TO BE OF FABULOUS ANTIQUITY...

This idea of a forged manuscript is reminiscent of the infamous "Donation of Constantine."

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus, "they" are still finding portions of Codex Sinaiticus in the 21st century. According to http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Sinaiticus, Codex Sinaiticus was found in 1859 (other sources say that Constantin von Tischendorf found it in 1844 and 1859. As I recall, the bulk of it was found in 1859). When one looks at the dates, one sees a whole lot happening after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (see Deception 23)...

According to http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/--

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its HEAVILY CORRECTED TEXT is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript -- the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity -- is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

Some people will believe anything that somebody tells them--especially if they have some "credentials."

Also from codexsinaiticus.org (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/)--

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the RECONSTRUCTION OF THE Christian BIBLE'S original TEXT, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

Reconstruction of the Bible... There are many church people who are fighting tooth and nail against the Authorized King James Bible and for modern corruptions which are ostensibly based on the "best manuscripts"--like Codex Sinaiticus.

In closing, a little about the man who found Codex Sinaiticus at St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai, Constantin von Tischendorf. From the internet--

Tischendorf was born in Lengenfeld, Saxony, near Plauen, the son of a physician. Beginning in 1834, he spent his scholarly career at the University of Leipzig where he was mainly influenced by JGB Winer, and HE BEGAN TO TAKE SPECIAL INTEREST IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

...HIS MAGNUM OPUS WAS THE "CRITICAL EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT."

Constantin von Tischendorf - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JudgeRightly]

I cannot provide you with Greek texts.

So you can't provide one shred of evidence that the texts contradict in a meaningful way, yet you expect me to believe you when you say that they do?

What a joke!

All I can do is quote Greek scholars. If you think the scholars i quote are wrong then you should refute them.

You're the one making the claim that the KJV is inerrant, marke!

You can appeal to authority (a fallacy) all you like, but it doesn't make you correct.

If you want to believe there are no meaningful differences between the Alexandrian texts and the Textus Receptus then you can believe that if you like, but I do not agree.

Again, the onus is yours to demonstrate that they contain meaningful differences, because that's YOUR claim, not mine.

The headings are italicized in my KJV Bible.

I have no way of verifying this at the moment.

You claimed the NKJV italicizes words they add that are not found in the original manuscripts. I pointed out that sometimes they neglect to italicize added words or phrases and you call me a hypocrite?

Supra.

 

[marke]

So you can't provide one shred of evidence that the texts contradict in a meaningful way, yet you expect me to believe you when you say that they do?

What a joke!

I believe the experts who have convinced me the Alexandrian Texts and the Textus Receptus have major serious differences.

You're the one making the claim that the KJV is inerrant, marke!

You can appeal to authority (a fallacy) all you like, but it doesn't make you correct.

To set the record straight, I claim the word of God is inerrant and is essentially preserved in inerrant form in the Textus Receptus and accurately translated in the KJV.

Again, the onus is yours to demonstrate that they contain meaningful differences, because that's YOUR claim, not mine.

I post support for my views. That is all I can do. If you reject what I post in support of my claims, then I'm sorry, but I am bound to hold views I have been persuaded by the sources to be right. If you disagree with the sources I post in support of my views then I am sorry but I will not be persuaded to change my views unless someone convinces me those views are wrong by refuting the evidence posted in my sources.

 

[Clete]

The last 12 verses of Mark that you claimed Satan tried to eliminate were said in the NKJV margin to not have been in the original manuscripts.

No it does not make any such claim!

Here's a direct quote from the footnote on page 1393 of my own hard copy of the New King James....

"Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with partial omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second and third century." - Footnote for Mark 16:9 - New King James Bible."​

​

That footnote is 100% factually true! And, not only that but Nelson Publishing, the publishers of the New King James, agreed with you and included the verses in the text!

Now when it comes to the online version, your confusion is more understandable but still incorrect. Here's the footnote as it appears on BibleGateway.com....

​

Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.​

​

Note that is DOES NOT make the claim that verses 9-20 are not in the original! It states CORRECTLY that the NU omits the verses as not being in the original. Guess what?! The NU is NOT the NKJV!
What is the NU?
Well, I didn't know either, but, instead of assuming, I spent about thirty seconds and looked it up. The New King James itself defines it...

NU-Text​

These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text [the oldest, but sometimes questioned text]. They are found in the Critical Text published in the Twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U), hence the acronym "NU-text."​

​

So, your go to example of corruption in the New King James turns out to be a total dud. Not only are these verses included in the text by the NKJV (and practically every other modern version), but the footnotes concerning those verses state clear and accurate information about the ancient manuscripts relating to those verses.

This is the sort of thing that happens to you, Marke, when you blindly believe whatever you're taught instead of thinking for yourself. Everything you've been told in relation to the notion of the superiority of the King James Bible should be looked at through squinted eyes (i.e. with skepticism). I have yet to find one who wasn't either like you, someone who is just parroting something they've heard someone else say that they thought sounded convincing, or who thought like a conspiracy theorist connecting things that haven't anything to do with one another and using the worst sort of "logic" imaginable to force the conclusion that they want. Reading KJV only people feels exactly like watching an episode of "Ancient Aliens" on the Discovery Channel.

Have you got anything else or was this your best shot?

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

No it does not make any such claim!

Here's a direct quote from the footnote on page 1393 of my own hard copy of the New King James....

"Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with partial omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second and third century." - Footnote for Mark 16:9 - New King James Bible."​

​

That footnote is 100% factually true! And, not only that but Nelson Publishing, the publishers of the New King James, agreed with you and included the verses in the text!

Now when it comes to the online version, your confusion is more understandable but still incorrect. Here's the footnote as it appears on BibleGateway.com....

​

Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.​

​

Note that is DOES NOT make the claim that verses 9-20 are not in the original! It states CORRECTLY that the NU omits the verses as not being in the original. Guess what?! The NU is NOT the NKJV!
What is the NU?
Well, I didn't know either, but, instead of assuming, I spent about thirty seconds and looked it up. The New King James itself defines it...

NU-Text​

These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text [the oldest, but sometimes questioned text]. They are found in the Critical Text published in the Twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U), hence the acronym "NU-text."​

​

So, your go to example of corruption in the New King James turns out to be a total dud. Not only are these verses included in the text by the NKJV (and practically every other modern version), but the footnotes concerning those verses state clear and accurate information about the ancient manuscripts relating to those verses.

This is the sort of thing that happens to you, Marke, when you blindly believe whatever you're taught instead of thinking for yourself. Everything you've been told in relation to the notion of the superiority of the King James Bible should be looked at through squinted eyes (i.e. with skepticism). I have yet to find one who wasn't either like you, someone who is just parroting something they've heard someone else say that they thought sounded convincing, or who thought like a conspiracy theorist connecting things that haven't anything to do with one another and using the worst sort of "logic" imaginable to force the conclusion that they want. Reading KJV only people feels exactly like watching an episode of "Ancient Aliens" on the Discovery Channel.

Have you got anything else or was this your best shot?

Clete

I literally just got done explaining this to him earlier. He ignored it. I'm not surprised you have to repeat it.

 

[Right Divider]

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.

You've not made a good case for that theory. Care to give it a try?

 

[marke]

No it does not make any such claim!

Here's a direct quote from the footnote on page 1393 of my own hard copy of the New King James....

"Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; others have them with partial omissions and variations. But the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second and third century." - Footnote for Mark 16:9 - New King James Bible."​

​

That footnote is 100% factually true! And, not only that but Nelson Publishing, the publishers of the New King James, agreed with you and included the verses in the text!

No. The problem with the footnote is that it does not share the fact that the "most ancient" manuscripts spoken of were rejected by the best translation scholars over the years as being some of the most corrupt. By leaving out key details like that the NKJV translators have unknowingly contributed to the deception of the devil that was the reason the manuscripts were corrupted in the first place.

 

[marke]

NU-Text

These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text [the oldest, but sometimes questioned text]. They are found in the Critical Text published in the Twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U), hence the acronym "NU-text."​

The NU text shares many errors introduced by Westcott's corrupt new Greek replacement for the Textus Receptus.

 

[marke]

This is the sort of thing that happens to you, Marke, when you blindly believe whatever you're taught instead of thinking for yourself. Everything you've been told in relation to the notion of the superiority of the King James Bible should be looked at through squinted eyes (i.e. with skepticism). I have yet to find one who wasn't either like you, someone who is just parroting something they've heard someone else say that they thought sounded convincing, or who thought like a conspiracy theorist connecting things that haven't anything to do with one another and using the worst sort of "logic" imaginable to force the conclusion that they want. Reading KJV only people feels exactly like watching an episode of "Ancient Aliens" on the Discovery Channel.

I am no more blindly parroting what I have been taught than you are.

 

[marke]

You've not made a good case for that theory. Care to give it a try?

What case can be made for translations that lend support to the doctrine of infant baptism by altering the word of God?

 

[Right Divider]

What case can be made for translations that lend support to the doctrine of infant baptism by altering the word of God?

You, again, simply beg the question. Why not try to make an actual argument instead?

 

[Clete]

But the book of Acts chapter 8 in the NIV does not have the same number of verses as does the KJV. I don't want a Bible version that simply takes verses out of the Bible whenever they feel like it.

The NIV doesn't omit verses "whenever they feel like it"!

You see! This is the sort of nonsense I always see from you KJV only morons! There's no reasoning behind it at all. It's just so much hysteria and stupidity.

The NIV omits verse 37 from Acts 8 because the texts that the people who translated that version of the bible decided where the texts that they wanted to work from does not include that verse. It's the same "NU" texts that I mentioned in my previous post. (i.e. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U)).

In other words, it isn't arbitrary. You might not like those older texts and perhaps even for good reason. In fact, I myself prefer the texts from which the KJV and the NKJV are translated, the so called "majority texts" which are not as complete nor as old but are still more trust worthy, because the older, more complete texts are probably older and more complete because they were not getting used. However, the fact the you or I prefer a different text doesn't mean that the other texts don't exist and if someone else comes to a different conclusion about such matters, it doesn't mean that they're Satan incarnate nor does it mean that they aren't publishing a valid bible because with or without the last several verses of the book of Mark or verse 37 of Acts 8, the message of the bible is not perturbed in an appreciable manner, to the point that I know of no doctrine that would be altered in the slightest because someone used something like the NIV or ASV rather than the KJV. Indeed, the hindrance one experiences because of the antiquated language used in the KJV has a far more pervasive effect one's understanding of the bible than either of these two issues you've brought up so far, especially given the fact that the New King James includes both the last verses of Mark and verse 37 of Acts 8.

What else do you have?

 

[Clete]

No. The problem with the footnote is that it does not share the fact that the "most ancient" manuscripts spoken of were rejected by the best translation scholars over the years as being some of the most corrupt. By leaving out key details like that the NKJV translators have unknowingly contributed to the deception of the devil that was the reason the manuscripts were corrupted in the first place.

That's nonsense!

You're a conspiracy theorist.

No reasoning with you. Believe whatever you want! It makes no difference whether it makes and sense or not!

What in the world are you doing here?

 

[Clete]

I am no more blindly parroting what I have been taught than you are.

You're a liar, Marke! Either that or you're a conspiracy theorist that cannot think clearly.

Now THAT deserves my ignore list!

Good bye!

 

[JudgeRightly]

You, again, simply beg the question. Why not try to make an actual argument instead?

Please take it to a new thread.

 

[JudgeRightly]

the message of the bible is not perturbed in an appreciable manner, to the point that I know of no doctrine that would be altered in the slightest

This is what I've been saying this entire time. He still cannot provide any example from the texts that would cause me or anyone to reject what Will Duffy said in the sermon I mentioned earlier, nor the person he quoted.

"Instead of dividing over the few textual variances that exist in the Greek manuscripts, we should join hands because of the overwhelming consistency of the New Testament manuscripts, because that overwhelming consistency among them is actually evidence of its reliability!"

-Will Duffy, Sermon "Bible Versions Matter Part 2" from September 27th, 2015

"To be skeptical of the resultant texts of the New Testament books is to allow all of Classical Antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested to biographically as the New Testament."

- John W. Montgomery (Will Duffy also quoted him in the aforementioned sermon.)

The three different Greek textual families agree 98-99% of the time, marke. In other words. That's how minor the differences are.

 

[marke]

You, again, simply beg the question. Why not try to make an actual argument instead?

I claim versions that discount or disallow the deity of Christ are corrupted. I claim versions that discount or disallow the virgin birth are corrupted. I claim versions that downplay the significance of Jesus' shed blood are corrupted. I claim versions that give support for the doctrine of infant baptism are not as good as versions that don't.

These are my opinions. I don't care if others don't share them but I will not be bullied into abandoning my opinions because others have different opinions they do not prove are better for me than mine.

 

[marke]

The NIV doesn't omit verses "whenever they feel like it"!

You see! This is the sort of nonsense I always see from you KJV only morons! There's no reasoning behind it at all. It's just so much hysteria and stupidity.

The NIV omits verse 37 from Acts 8 because the texts that the people who translated that version of the bible decided where the texts that they wanted to work from does not include that verse. It's the same "NU" texts that I mentioned in my previous post. (i.e. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society's third edition (U)).

OK. The translators of the NIV did not approve of the Textus Receptus and made that fact known in their own translation of the alternative text.