I agree that many KJVO opinions are flawed. I do not agree that my opinions are formed by just one book, one tape, or one sermon. I also believe I have studied the issues involving manuscripts as much as probably anyone here, including you.
Why I support the KJV Bible
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
My views were not first formed before I studied manuscripts but were formed after I studied manuscripts.
Yeah, like all of them! The entire premise is flawed and makes the whole of Christianity look idiotic every time one of them opens their mouth.
I never claimed to have studied them at all and you need to start learning about the use of hyperbole so that you don't sound like a lawyer defending yourself against having read "just one book, one tape, or one sermon".
Last edited:
If you have aversions to the KJV then what Bible version do you favor and do you think it has errors or not? Do Christians need Greek experts to tell them what words in the NT are inspired of God and what words are not?
I think I explained that. When the Roman Emperor Constantine took over Christianity to solidify the support of the Army, he called (HE CALLED, not the Bishops) for the council of Nicaea to convene in order to find out the particulars of his newly adopted religion. It appalled him that writ large, Bishops from all over the Empire could not present him with a consistent set of doctrines that could be established as, "Here is Christianity." There wasn't a single Christianity, but multiple sets of belief, and the Emperor could not abide this.
Basically, the Council of Nicaea was convened to create a "Statement of Faith." that could be spread across the Empire. (Obviously the "radical" minorities had to be squelched and excommunicated.) Please remember, by this time around 325 AD, Constantine had moved the capitol of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople (now known as Istanbul in Turkey). Over the next 100 years, as the Western part of the Roman Empire finally fell (i.e. disintegrated into the regional territories of Germanic tribes that were never unified until Charlemagne until 800 AD) the Eastern Empire remained strong, with one faith guided by the Patriarch (Bishop) of Constantinople.
The reason that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts agree with text from the Byzantine Empire is that these manuscripts came from the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire made sure that all the churches in their empire had manuscripts that agreed with those held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Paper wears out and disintegrates, so as new churches monasteries were built, or as old churches were remodeled and improved, any older manuscripts were collected and trashed to be replaced with exciting new copies coming from Constantinople. I gather you are Protestant, so imagine Billy Graham, or Martin Luther coming to your town, bringing spanking new Bibles for your church. The old ones would be collected and disposed with.
And so your "overwhelming agreement" among the various manuscripts found later within Byzantine Empire is not a miraculous event.... just normal librarian curation. (New Bibles, with that New Bible smell.)
I cannot tell if you're just obtuse or willfully ignorant. Westcott DID NOT TRANSLATE ANY Greek text. How come you say these bizarre things? WH took various differing Greek manuscripts and folded variants into a single Greek text that they thought (from their studies) to be closest to the original texts. They didn't translate anything.
With all due respect, please stop saying absurd things like this.
Rhema
How much value can we place on the ramblings of someone who does not take the time to educate himself in the FACTS, regardless of his mindless adherence to "God's inspiration of the Bible"?
I've already stipulated that the author draws spurious conclusions in his book, but there are FACTS contained within that must be recognized and acknowledged.
You never read the book, did you.
So basically I'm left wasting my time posting with an uneducated individual who doesn't know enough to be able to make an informed opinion (but is dang well going to stick with it).
(Sigh...)
Rhema
So much for your "extensive study."
Well that would explain a lot.
The newer "majority" manuscripts were corrupted and changed to conform to the theological views of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
But the Eastern Orthodox Church could not destroy manuscripts down in Alexandra Egypt, only the manuscripts that could be found in their own Eastern Empire. That's WHY there are no "older" manuscripts found in the region once governed by the Byzantine Empire.
You seem to not understand how the "majority" became the majority.
Rhema
How can you say you studied manuscripts if you cannot read the language?
Do you know how insane that sounds?
Last edited:
People hold the Book of Mormon as special to them. And yes, THAT choice can be dismissed as wrong.
(Same with the JW New World Testament.)
God preserved His word through human transcription and His word was not lost to bad transcribers no matter where they lived and under whom they operated. Westcott's Greek does not agree with the Textus Receptus. His Greek was new at the time. As you said, he incorporated into his new Greek rendition bad manuscripts like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, thus rendering them worthless.
If you have never read Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, it would be more correct to say you are uneducated than to say I am uneducated for not reading the flawed book by Ehrman.
I admit I never came across anything so counterfeit as 3 Corinthians.
I suspect you must have greater respect for schools that did not stick to facts, truth, and excellence in education as did Bob Jones in past decades.
I read excellent books that did accurate comparisons between manuscripts and exposed flaws in some that were not in others. I doubt any educated theologian, including you, could get his hands on so many manuscripts to study them himself without teachers doing the same thing for him they did for me.
I do not agree with those who hold the JW translation, the book of Mormon, or Westcott's Greek text and all the translations that used that tainted text for translating.
I use the New King James which has virtually all of the advantages of the KJV but without the antiquated English language.
It has no more errors of significance than does the KJV.
Assinine questions get people put on ignore.
If you have an argument to make then make it.
But you don't. This sort of emotionally based, back handed insult is all you've got.
Perhaps you do not understand the importance of my question. I have been accused of being unqualified to judge what is right and what is wrong in texts or versions because I 'have not been educated.' What makes those accusations silly is that nobody alive today has studied every extant manuscript, has studied manuscripts on their own with no guidance from others they look to for wisdom, or has come p with a universally-accepted standard of evaluation of manuscripts.
I studied under brilliant teachers, just not in a classroom. How does that make me unlearned? Also, the teachers themselves disagree among themselves so who has devised an irrefutable standard by which to evaluate what is being taught? Westcott? Burgon? Ruckman? James White?
Do non-theologians need theologians to interpret the Bible for them and to steer them away from flawed passages or can unlearned Christians simply go to God for that?
Irrelevant.
That's because there cannot be any such standard apart from the actual originals themselves, which no longer exist and which not only would exist but would be in our possession if God thought that any such standard was needed.
Anyone who can read English can read ANY English bible that they happen to find and understand it sufficiently to not only get saved but to formulate correct doctrine and practice. If they are honestly searching for the truth and reach a point in their study where problem passages need addressed then there are sufficient resources available for him to do so in a manner that is sufficient. We have no more need of a perfectly flawless bible than we have need of perfectly flawless DNA or that Paul had of perfect eye sight.