Why I support the KJV Bible

marke

Well-known member
Because, I know people who have spent thousands of hours studying various things. And I mean for real studying them, not just picking up several books that they know in advance defend a position that they already hold and watching YouTube videos that do the same. I know what they sound like when they talk about their chosen field of study. They actually sound like the experts that they are, not some hack that read one book that convinced them of something. In addition to that, they are eager to talk about the things they've learned. There is no need to practically beg them to engage the subject nor is it like pulling teeth to get them to share even a single piece of evidence that backs up their beliefs on the subject and they NEVER point you to some obscure book that no one has ever heard of before so as to keep from having to say three whole sentences in response to a direct question the way you do.

If you had spent thousands of hours studying bible translations, you would not be here saying the things you're saying. One percent of that amount of time is more than it would take for you to figure out that KJV onlyism (or any flavor of it) is simply ridiculous nonsense. In short, I can tell that you've not spent thousands of hours studying the subject because you don't know what you're talking about.
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
Has nothing to do with disagreement. I get along with people I disagree with all the time. It's lazy fools who pretend to be something they aren't and pretend to think and pretend to make decisions on real information when all they really do is pick the side that tickles their ears on a particular issue and then go fishing for information that supports it.


You're not just lazy, you're an idiot. You KNOW no such thing. You believe it and you haven't any idea what the difference is.
My views were not first formed before I studied manuscripts but were formed after I studied manuscripts.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I agree that many KJVO opinions are flawed.
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 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.
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:

marke

Well-known member
Yeah, like all of them! The entire premise is flawed and makes the whole of Christianity look idiot 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 don't sound like a lawyer defending yourself against having read "just one book, one tape, or one sermon".
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?
 

Rhema

Active member
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
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.)
... manuscripts were used by Westcott to translate his New Greek...
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
 

Rhema

Active member
Bart Ehrman does not believe in the infallible inspiration of God's word. He offers his biased interpretations and views of God's historic opreservation of His word down therough the ages but how much value can we place on the ramblings of someone who does not believe in God's inspiration of the Bible?
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
 

Rhema

Active member
If the older manuscripts had not been corrupted they would not have become so different from the majority of manuscripts and from each other.
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
 

Rhema

Active member
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.
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.)
 

marke

Well-known member
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
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
How can you say you studied manuscripts if you cannot read the language?

Do you know how insane that sound?
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.)
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.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If you have aversions to the KJV then what Bible version do you favor and do you think it has errors or not?
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.

Do Christians need Greek experts to tell them what words in the NT are inspired of God and what words are not?
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
Irrelevant.

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?
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.

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?
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.
 
Top