Why I support the KJV Bible

[Rhema]

Fair enough. You say the writer of this article is lying?

Truly you cannot be that stupid.

Trace back the conversation.

THIS was the article you cited.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

From this post: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

Wait, are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 should or should not be included in the Bible? If "should," then what's your problem? Even the NKJV keeps it. Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes. The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes...

theologyonline.com

Rhema

(An honest man would apologize.)

And I gave my answer here: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

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...

theologyonline.com

 

[marke]

Please name one Greek expert.

Dean Burgon. Peter Ruckman. There are two to start with.

 

[Rhema]

Third Corinthians? Sounds like something another Tischendorf could 'find' in a forgotten dustbin of a devout backwoods' Roman Catholic monastery.

You should hang your head in shame for the ignorance you exhibit, not to mention repent.

(But that's 'Merica)

 

[marke]

The originals are no longer with us. That means the champions of the KJV cannot prove the Byzantine texts are superior to the Alexandrian.

Sounds like a stalemate. I'm OK with that because I have no irresistible drive to compel others to see what I see.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Truly you cannot be that stupid.

Trace back the conversation.

THIS was the article you cited.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

From this post: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

Wait, are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 should or should not be included in the Bible? If "should," then what's your problem? Even the NKJV keeps it. Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes. The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes...

theologyonline.com

Rhema

(An honest man would apologize.)

You realize He was quoting the article that I linked to.... Right?

Surely you can't be that stupid...

 

[marke]

Every time I encounter anyone who has based his or her faith on the KJVO, always without fail will use the phrase "full of errors," when in fact absolutely NO ONE has ever said such a thing.

But, Marke, the FIRST printed edition of the KJV in 1611 had errors. And in subsequent printed editions over the next two decades, the KJV itself was full of errors.

Why do you wish to remain ignorant?

You claim the KJV had errors, but I remain unconvinced because you have not persuasively demonstrated that you are right about that.

Rhema
But to answer your question I would recommend someone who understood the Koine Greek language to teach students the Greek language. (That's how I learned.) The KJV translators, however, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of that dialect.

Were the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus both written in Koine Greek? Were the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus copied from the same original Greek text?

 

[marke]

Truly you cannot be that stupid.
Trace back the conversation.

Did I stupidly think you were calling another poster's source a liar? If so, I apologize.

 

[marke]

Truly you cannot be that stupid.

Trace back the conversation.

THIS was the article you cited.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

From this post: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

Wait, are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 should or should not be included in the Bible? If "should," then what's your problem? Even the NKJV keeps it. Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes. The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes...

theologyonline.com

Rhema

(An honest man would apologize.)

And I gave my answer here: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

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...

theologyonline.com

Let's acknowledge some facts before proceeding. You give your opinions and then offer online support for those opinions. I commend you for that, but I do not commend you for claiming your opinions and the opinions of authors who support you should be enough to irrefutably settle the issue, forcing me to do the right thing according to you and apologize for holding different views than you. Your opinions and the similar opinions of those who think like you do nothing to convince me and those who think like me that we are wrong and should hang our heads in shame at the feet of your opinionated sources.

 

[Rhema]

Dean Burgon.

Please tell me you know his name was John Burgon?

John Burgon, Dean of Chichester Cathedral in 1876, cannot be considered a Greek expert, in that the dialect of Koine was not discovered until after his death.

And I quote from your own expert, meaning BURGON HIMSELF SAID THIS:

Contrary to what some believe, Burgon, unlike all modern KJV-only advocates, did not argue for the perfection of the TR. Burgon is quite unequivocal: “Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (Revision Revised, p. 21, fn. 2).​

Burgon's objection was that the committee selected to publish the RV (a revised version of the AV) changed Greek manuscript sources. He felt it could not be represented as a Revised Version of the AV unless it only used the TR as published by Erasmus. (It's a rather spurious argument.)

Try again.

Peter Ruckman.

A man who described himself as "uneasy, unsettled, full of demons" ??

- Peter Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony (audiotape), Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d., quoted in R. L. Hymers, Jr., The Ruckman Conspiracy (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1989), 3-4, 19.​

Also:
"After he began to hear voices, he met with a Jesuit priest to explore joining the Roman Catholic Church. On March 14, 1949, Ruckman allegedly received Jesus Christ after talking with evangelist Hugh Pyle in the studios of WEAR radio in Pensacola. Ruckman attended Bob Jones University, where he received a master's degree and Ph.D. in religion."

From:

"It was at this point, on the verge of suicide, that Ruckman began to hear a series of voices. He himself interprets the voices as being the voice of God, for the most part. He thinks that he learned to distinguish the voice of God from the voice of demons through yoga." The Ruckman Conspiracy (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1989)​

Peter Ruckman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are two to start with.

At this point, sir, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't have the capacity to make wise choices.

Rhema

How can anyone take you seriously after this?

 

[marke]

Truly you cannot be that stupid.
Trace back the conversation.

THIS was the article you cited.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? Can we trust the reliability of the Bibles we have today?

www.gotquestions.org

From this post: (click on the link....)

Why I support the KJV Bible

Wait, are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 should or should not be included in the Bible? If "should," then what's your problem? Even the NKJV keeps it. Should Mark 16:9-20 be included in the English Bible? It is included in the KJV so I say yes. The NKJV is unclear on the issue since it includes...

theologyonline.com

I suggest you re-read post 66 and then follow the conversation from there so you will not make the kind of mistakes you are making here.

 

[marke]

Please tell me you know his name was John Burgon?

John Burgon, Dean of Chichester Cathedral in 1876, cannot be considered a Greek expert, in that the dialect of Koine was not discovered until after his death.

And I quote from your own expert, meaning BURGON HIMSELF SAID THIS:

Contrary to what some believe, Burgon, unlike all modern KJV-only advocates, did not argue for the perfection of the TR. Burgon is quite unequivocal: “Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (Revision Revised, p. 21, fn. 2).​

Burgon's objection was that the committee selected to publish the RV (a revised version of the AV) changed Greek manuscript sources. He felt it could not be represented as a Revised Version of the AV unless it only used the TR as published by Erasmus. (It's a rather spurious argument.)

Try again.

Burgon exposed the corruption in Westcott's Revision Revised and his excellent critique of that corrupted translation has formed the foundation for my respect for the KJV and Textus Receptus ever since I read it. Since the Textus Receptus was not written in Koine Greek and you were trained in the Koine then I suspect your understanding and appreciation of the Textus Receptus may have been materially damaged by your limited education.

A man who described himself as "uneasy, unsettled, full of demons" ??

- Peter Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony (audiotape), Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d., quoted in R. L. Hymers, Jr., The Ruckman Conspiracy (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1989), 3-4, 19.​

Also:
"After he began to hear voices, he met with a Jesuit priest to explore joining the Roman Catholic Church. On March 14, 1949, Ruckman allegedly received Jesus Christ after talking with evangelist Hugh Pyle in the studios of WEAR radio in Pensacola. Ruckman attended Bob Jones University, where he received a master's degree and Ph.D. in religion."

From:

"It was at this point, on the verge of suicide, that Ruckman began to hear a series of voices. He himself interprets the voices as being the voice of God, for the most part. He thinks that he learned to distinguish the voice of God from the voice of demons through yoga." The Ruckman Conspiracy (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1989)​

Peter Ruckman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You mock a man who excelled above his peers in education and understanding. Like us all, he had flaws, but unlike most, he understood translation issues.

Robert Dick Wilson was another scholar who influenced me greatly. Here is a biographical sketch from Wikipedia:

Robert Dick Wilson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Biography[edit]​

Wilson was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania.[2] He proved himself an outstanding language student even as an undergraduate. While at Princeton University, he was able to read the New Testament in nine languages. He graduated from Princeton at the age of 20, later receiving a master's degree and doctorate before doing post-graduate work in Germany at the Humboldt University of Berlin. In 1883, Wilson became Professor of the Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary (later known as Pittsburgh Theological Seminary), where he had done some of his graduate studies. In 1900, he returned to Princeton as the William Henry Green Professor of Semitic Languages and Old Testament Criticism at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Throughout his career, he opposed the higher criticism, which held that the Bible was inaccurate on many points and not historically reliable. Professor Wilson wrote, "I have come to the conviction that no man knows enough to attack the veracity of the Old Testament. Every time when anyone has been able to get together enough documentary 'proofs' to undertake an investigation, the biblical facts in the original text have victoriously met the test" (quoted in R. Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture).

In the late 1920s, he left Princeton to teach at the new, conservative Westminster Theological Seminary.[2] Among his other works, Wilson contributed articles to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a noted Bible reference of the early 20th century.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You claim the KJV had errors, but I remain unconvinced because you have not persuasively demonstrated that you are right about that.

Biblical Criticism: The Reality of Copyists' Errors

From time to time, a person reading the Bible will come across names or numbers in two or more passages that seem to contradict each other. What, how and why?

helpmewithbiblestudy.org

 

[Rhema]

Let's acknowledge some facts before proceeding. You give your opinions and then offer online support for those opinions. I commend you for that, but I do not commend you for claiming your opinions and the opinions of authors who support you should be enough to irrefutably settle the issue, forcing me to do the right thing according to you and apologize for holding different views than you. Your opinions and the similar opinions of those who think like you do nothing to convince me and those who think like me that we are wrong and should hang our heads in shame at the feet of your opinionated sources.

To an uneducated person, everything is an opinion.

But in truth, you don't hold "different views." By definition a "view" must be informed. All I see from your posts is a series of blatant assertions with NO supportive facts whatsoever. Unlike you, I have actually done my homework. Those are the facts that need to be acknowledged. (And at least I can keep track of a conversation.)

I do NOT apologize for my education, nor do I apologize for my wisdom and intelligence to understand and separate FACT from opinion.

But I get it. You feel threatened, just like all the other half-baked KJVO theorists. That's why you, (as with emotionally unstable people) will never read the books for which I provided links, because the facts therin will indeed prove you wrong.

... do nothing to convince me

Didn't God speak of this same type of stubbornness in the Jews?

Remember this, however, "according to your faith so be it." It's just unfortunate that you place your faith not in God, but in a translation that is now known to be faulty (even to "Dean" Burgon).

Rhema

And since you won't read anything anyway, here ya go buddy
(but stick with the 2nd edition)

Amazon.com

 

[Rhema]

Since the Textus Receptus was not written in Koine Greek

Congratulation, you have passed into the absurd.
(All without substantive proof.)
I have to applaud your dogmatic embrace of ignorance.
God speed.

 

[Rhema]

You mock a man who excelled above his peers in education and understanding.

Beyond absurd.

It would seem that you failed to understand that this was from Ruckman's OWN testimony about himself.

Now are you claiming to have graduated from Bob Jones University?
(Taken any courses?)

And since you brought it up. Just what IS your level of education?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

You realize He was quoting the article that I linked to.... Right?

Surely you can't be that stupid...

My response was to his comment on that article, which he did indeed cite.

Thanks,


(and I posted the link)

 

[marke]

Biblical Criticism: The Reality of Copyists' Errors

From time to time, a person reading the Bible will come across names or numbers in two or more passages that seem to contradict each other. What, how and why?

helpmewithbiblestudy.org

The problem with textual criticism is that none of the manuscripts agree among themselves entirely even though the overwhelming majority of manuscripts agree in the main with the Textus Receptus and the remaining minority of manuscripts were used by Westcott to translate his New Greek that majorly influenced the NU Koine Greek text. The KJV is not a manuscript in the original language and should be expected to have some issues with some critics over what to them may be serious errors.

 

[marke]

To an uneducated person, everything is an opinion.

But in truth, you don't hold "different views." By definition a "view" must be informed. All I see from your posts is a series of blatant assertions with NO supportive facts whatsoever. Unlike you, I have actually done my homework. Those are the facts that need to be acknowledged. (And at least I can keep track of a conversation.)

I do NOT apologize for my education, nor do I apologize for my wisdom and intelligence to understand and separate FACT from opinion.

But I get it. You feel threatened, just like all the other half-baked KJVO theorists. That's why you, (as with emotionally unstable people) will never read the books for which I provided links, because the facts therin will indeed prove you wrong.

I don't apologize for being persuaded by men like Burgon and Wilson to believe the KJV is the best English translation available today.

 

[marke]

Beyond absurd.

It would seem that you failed to understand that this was from Ruckman's OWN testimony about himself.

Now are you claiming to have graduated from Bob Jones University?
(Taken any courses?)

And since you brought it up. Just what IS your level of education?

Thanks,
Rhema

My wife and my daughter both graduated from Bob Jones. I turned down a guaranteed appointment to West Point, choosing rather to serve the Lord in a different life's work.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem with textual criticism is that none of the manuscripts agree among themselves entirely even though the overwhelming majority of manuscripts agree in the main with the Textus Receptus and the remaining minority of manuscripts were used by Westcott to translate his New Greek that majorly influenced the NU Koine Greek text. The KJV is not a manuscript in the original language and should be expected to have some issues with some critics over what to them may be serious errors.

The problem is that tyou assume that ANY disagreement between texts is a major problem.

Reality is that these "disagreements" you keep pointing to are usually so minor (such as "Christ Jesus" vs "Jesus Christ" or a similar way of saying the same thing) that the meaning of the text doesn't change at all regardless of which text is used.

You're literally making a mountain out of an anthill, marke. These "disagreements" between the texts are, as both Clete and I have pointed out to you MULTIIPLE times in this thread, so minor that they do not affect the overall message of the Bible. The Plot remains unaffected in any meaningful way.

Question, marke:

Are you aware that in the case of Paul's Epistles at lest, Paul expected, commanded, even, his letters to the churches and groups he wrote to to be copied and shared with other believers in the viscinity of where he sent the letters?

You realize that the people who copied those letters in order to share them with their brothers and sisters in Christ were not nearly as strinct with their copying methods as those who were actually dedicated to the task of doing so to preserve them, right?