The Geneva Bible is so close to the KJV that the translators have been accused of plagerism by some. King James himself did not like the Geneva Bible because the notes it contained preached against "the divine right of Kings" Which Im sure was a "right" he was very fond of. You can view the Geneva Bible in pdf format here http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html



Ray

Ray, I agree, here is something I have found and they are results of my study and therefore my notes, so please don't accept them as canon unless you study for yourselves :

Peshitta Syriac 3rd-5th century?– historic Bible of the Syrian Church; Old Testament in Hebrew Syriac.
Also Syriac New Testament – incomplete

Latin Vulgate – Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate the Hebrew Old Testament. He never completed a translation of the New Testament. This was performed sometime around 382 AD and finished in 405 AD, it included the seven Deutero-Canonical books used by the catholic church, which are called the the apocrypha.

The Vulgate today – created by the assembling of many books together including Jerome’s vulgate

Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Greek Translation of the Old Testament c.3rd century BC, contains the Apocrypha. Has Alexandrian roots. Accepted by many of the eastern church.

Hexapla – columned bible in 6 translations. Written by Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD). Alexandrian roots.

Textus Receptus – first “published” Greek text of the New Testament. It has Antiochan roots. Copies of the Greek handwritten texts and scrolls were used for these copies in book printed format. It has no Alexandrian roots. Many people made copies of this including:

Erasmus – 1516 {1 John 5:7-8 derived from his 3rd edition 1522, taken from a “recently written”Codex 61.(questionable find, will research this claim)}

Stephanus – 1546-1550
Beza – 1598,1624
Elzevir – 1624,1633
Griesbach – 1774-5
Scholz – 1830-6

And others including Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, The Revisers’ Text, Westcott and Hortt(1881-1903), Scrivener, Weymouth, and Nestle, all of which dated between 1831-1904.

The KJV was mostly based on copies by Beza, Stephanus, and Elzevir.

You have two "handwritten manuscript collections". Either the manuscripts in Alexandria, Egypt or Antioch, Syria.

ALL New Testament MV's today are translated from and/or are based on manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.

The Textus Receptus and the KJV were based on Antiochan manuscripts which are almost all based off of Paul's works, and we cannot forget christians were first called christians in Antioch.

Don't know about you guys, but I think this is self-explanatory. Alexandrian manuscripts are altered, perverted forms of scripture to parallel the way of thinking in Egypt at that time to conform to the "philosophical center" of all the world, which all modern versions use for their basis.

Draw your own conclusions,

In Christ,

Jim

RJP, I just wanted to also comment about something you put:

The opposite of "flawed" is "unflawed" or perfect. If you say the didn't have a "flawed" version, then aren't you saying it was perfect? Isn't that a little contradictory to your earlier statement:

Just wondering,

Jim

I stated earlier on somewhere that the "perfection" we keep arguing is two different perfections, God's perfection is one thing, what we perceive to be "perfect" is another. What I see the KJV to be perfect in, is the Will of God and the representation of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Could it have typographical and physical errors? Sure. Does it? Probably. Does that take away from the perfection of Christ? No.

I am not contradicting the perfection of Christ or the Word of God. I am contradicting your perception of what you believe to be "perfect". I agree that what we have in the KJV is the best we could have in God's preserved Word. I do NOT believe, as stated multiple times before, that the MV's are the preserved Word of God. I believe the original authors of the Greek manuscripts, written by hand, are the ones who were inspired. Remember that many, many, many replicas and copies occured for hundreds of years before we obtained the ones we used for the TR. There are some of the "originals", but I believe that to be neither here nor there.

I hope maybe that I was not describing myself properly on "perfection" with my earlier posts. I hope this clarified my position.

May my words not be unacceptable to our Lord, and may He forgive me if I am in error as to not be a stumbling block to others.

In Christ,

Jim

OK. Working on questions I missed or “avoided”.

Jim,

Re the Bible being living. It is alive in that God the HS speaks through it to our hearts. It is not alive in the sense of growing (i.e. changing). The text is fixed, set, established, not changing (this is what started the KJV issue on this thread). Will further address alive and “quick” (Heb 4:12) under other thread and consideration of John 1.

Re 2Cor 10:5 and 2Pet 1:20, just keeping these in mind is no guarantee that “we do not need to worry about our interpretation and understanding”. The weakness is not the HS, it is our flesh. As long as we are in it, we have better worry (1Cor 10:12).

Sailorjerry,

Re “according to your "interpretation" of the Scriptures, Matthew 28:18-20 was not given to us, but only to the Jews, as there were only Jews present; the same with John 14:1-3; and John 17; and John 10:27-29; actually nothing Jesus said could then be meant FOR us, we can only hope to draw some kind of a lesson from it?” I SAID NOTHING OF THE KIN D!!! I would think that you could find enough to object to in what I actually said. You should not need to try to put words in my mouth!

Re “Did the Holy Spirit preserve His Words in the NIV? If so, then why were all those verses left out of the NIV? Was that intentioned by the Holy Spirit? How ablut [about] all the other versions that change words from the KJV?” The Holy Spirit did not write any translation. He may have guided some and not others, but He did not inspire it again. Why did Archbishop Richard Bancroft make 14 changes to the KJV text delivered to him by the translators in spite of their objections? Was that the superintending work of the Holy Spirit or corruption by a man? AGAIN, IF THE KJV IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE JUDGE ALL OTHER BIBLES, THEN THERE WAS NO PERFECT BIBLE BEFORE 1611!!! My contention is that we go to the original languages, not any version, English, Spanish, or other. EXCUSE ME if this contention inflames you, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE TRANSLATORS DID!!! Why could they get it right, but no one else can now?

Re, “So, we MUST then depend more on our education than on the Holy Spirit. Is it better to know the original language a work was written in, or to know and converse with the author?” No and Yes. If you read the Bible in English, you are depending upon your education. Somebody had to teach you to read. And, yes, reading it in the original languages is better than reading ANY translation. Re “conversing with the author” any conversing, at least bi-directional conversation, with the author had better be based on the WORD of God and not the word of any man who may say, “God told me...” Are you suggesting that the HS gives a reliable communication that is not subject to the weakness of our flesh beyond the Word of God? My interpretations are subjective, as are any other man’s. The only thing that is objective is a clear statement in the Word of God.

Re, “more important to know the Author rather than the language HE spoke?” He speaks all languages. He revealed Himself in three – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR PROPOSITION!!! It is a “BOTH AND” issue. We should know the Author and if we want to best understand what He said, we should learn the languages in which He inspired the Word! It may simplify things to say that the KJV is the perfectly preserved and inspired Word of God, but it fails to resolve some serious questions!

Re, “"IF JESUS WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PRECISION, WHY DID HE USE TWO DIFFERENT GREEK WORDS?" Uhhhh...because He was speaking Greek and not English?” THAT IS MY POINT!!! He was speaking in Greek, not in English! The English does not always reflect the precision of the Greek! He did not come to England in 1611. He came to Jerusalem in about 4-5 b.c.

Re 2Cor 11:13, is that talking about Bible versions? A text out of context is a pretext, or a proof text. The passage and it’s use in such a manner adds little to the discussion other than to subtly suggest that my position my better align with Satan than with God.

Re 1Cor 14:33 and 8, the whole point is to declare the Word of God clearly so that it can be understood, not confusing or uncertain. “Only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way.” The word “let” as it has been used for many years now is OPPOSITE the meaning of this passage. THAT IS AN UNCERTAIN SOUND! The NAS reads, “only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” At face value, that is much more certain and less confusing than the wording of the KJV.

Re, Are you saying all it takes is to know the original languages, what about Holy Spirit? NO. Did not even imply that. But if someone does not understand the language they are not going to have a good chance at understanding the text, or a translation. You understand the KJV based on the fact that you understand English. Certainly the Holy Spirit is essential. So is an understanding of the written Word.

Re “mixing theology with the tired and true Word of God” the two are inseparable! Theology is the study of God and we cannot study God apart from His Self-revelation in the written word. Any study of God that is not based on the written Word is self-deception at best, others-deception is a bit worse!

Re the law being TO and FOR us, if the commands of the OT are TO us we must keep them. If they are TO the Jews, but FOR us we learn from them and follow the principles but are not bound by the letter. If you eat pork and worship on Sunday we are in agreement! Jesus never repeated 2Chron 7:14, nor did the Apostles. By your own line of reasoning here, you should go to the Temple on the Sabbath.

And, there was a time when Jesus HIMSELF limited His ministry to the Jews ONLY – Matt 10:6; 15:24. Now it is expanded to “all nations”, “every creature”, and “the uttermost part of the earth” (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8).

Re, “You have a real problem here. you say "as Scripture stands..." Which one? My problem is not much bigger than yours. There are differences in KJV’s. ONE DIFFERENCE, ANY DIFFERENCE, EVEN A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE – MEANS THAT ONE OF THEM IS NOT THE PERFECTLY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD! How do you pick which one? He, she; her, him; see the list.

I deal with issue by going to the Greek, usually the Byzantine Majority Text, not the 4th edition of Erasmus. If you want to get into Greek Texts you need to get the work by F. H. A. Schrivener. He is the one who compiled the current TR that runs concurrent with the KJV. The KJV translators DID NOT FOLLOW ONLY ONE GREEK TEXT. THEY COMPARED THEM AND SOMETIMES THEY FOLLOWED ONE, AND SOMETIMES THEY FOLLOWED ANOTHER. AND ERASMUS HAD NO GREEK TEXT AT ALL FOR THE LAST SIX VERSES OF REVELATION. HE BACK TRANSLATED INTO GREEK FROM THE VULGATE! See F.H.A. Schrivener.

Jim, again, “Should we not have faith that what the Bible says is true?” Yes. A question for you? Faith that it said “him” or “her” in Gen 39:16 or “he” or “she” in Ruth 3:15? Which one do you pick? Not that it matters, THEY BOTH CAN’T BE RIGHT, and that is my point.

Sailorjerry, I do refer to the Greek in my study. I do not stand in the pulpit and “correct” the KJV. I say, “the Greek word is... and the sense of the passage is...” (Neh 8:8). If I preached in Greek that WOULD be an uncertain sound! Not able to follow your reasoning here? Sorry.

SJ cont to other post, Re 1Cor 13:10. I agree that the “perfect” was the Word of God. I believe that when Paul wrote this under the INSPIRATION of the HS, he had the perfect Word of God. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS THE 1611 KJV. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NOBODY HAD IT AGAIN TILL 1611. That which was in part does not refer to the process of collection or canonization. It refers to the OT and the Gospels which were not the complete word of God until John penned the last words of Revelation. HERE IS WHERE SOME EDUCATION IS HELPFUL. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN, IT HELPS YOU AVOID ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS NOT BASED ON THE TEXT!

Jim, “Answer these and I will answer yours: What is the preserved Word of God? If it is preserved, why is it not perfect? How can we as christians say that something of God is not perfect? I use the term perfect not in our finite definition, but as a sense of God's perfection and Holiness. If we cannot say this, then what non-perfect terms can we use to describe God? Can we in truth describe God in such a nonchalant manner?”

OK. In order. The preserved Word of God is found in the MSS (manuscripts) that have been faithfully copied for centuries. There are no key issues that are unresolved by comparing the various MSS with one another. Whether a word is singular or plural may be in question, but no critical doctrine is affected by the uncertainty. IT IS A FACT: NO TWO HANDWRITTEN MSS ARE IDENTICAL! THEY WERE ALL HANDWRITTEN UNTIL THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS. EVEN THE PRINTED ONES HAD SOME DIFFERENCES (The He/She Bible, the Adulterer’s Bible, left out the “not”). IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES HOW CAN YOU ARGUE FOR PERFECT PRESERVATION? I don’t believe you can. If you argue that the KJV (whichever you may pick) is the perfect Word of God, you are arguing for restoration, not preservation. As much of an idiot as I think he is, even Peter Ruckman sees that. Maybe should not have called him that, but I did and didn’t change it.

I am a new creation in Christ Jesus. Old things have passed away. All things have become new. This is by the grace and power of God. Yet, I am not perfect. Don’t think you are either, in spite of God’s grace working in both of our lives (see, I don’t count you a heretic because we disagree, you may not count me one either, but it is evident that some here do). The part of me that is not perfect is the part that is flesh. As long as I am in the flesh, I will not be perfect, even though I am a work of God in progress. NOW APPLY THIS TO THE WORD and your question. THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS WERE GOD BREATHED. When men began to copy them, differences in MSS crept in. What was Perfect because God breathed it became imperfect because the flesh touched it. There are differences. The MSS are not the same. Yet, when you compare thousands, old and new, translations in ancient languages and quotations from ancient sources, the differences are minimized. BUT NOT ELIMINATED.

NOW A QUESTION FOR YOU. IF PSA 12:7 is a promise of perfect preservation, Why did God wait till 1611 to “get it right” again? And if 1611 was perfect, why did they change it? If it was not perfect, why did it take till 1769, or 1850?

ANOTHER QUESTION (as I continue answering yours and others), If the KJV translators sought to compare multiple MSS, why should scholars today stop that process with THOUSANDS more available than the KJV translators had?

We can never describe God in a “nonchalant” manner. Hence all the effort that I am taking with this. This is anything but nonchalant with me!!!

Later post, “Why do we need the MV’s? Why was the KJV not good enough?” Hate to answer a question with a question, but let me start that way. “Why did we need the KJV? Why was the Geneva not good enough? Why was the Bishop’s not good enough?” I have no malice against anyone who uses the KJV, hey, that’s me! I use the KJV! I have a serious problem with the idea that “finally God got it right in 1611". THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION FROM THE KJVO POSITION!!! The other English versions, before and after, must all be wrong if the KJV is perfect! And, only one of the KJV’s can be perfect.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS PROMISED, OR THAT HE HAS PERFECTLY PRESERVED HIS WORD IN ONE ENGLISH TRANSLATION!!!

Regarding easier to read, sometimes yes, sometimes no. “Superfluity of naughtiness”, “Only he who now letteth will let”, etc. If you have to get a Dictionary to read the KJV at least get a NKJV or a MKJV! The true KJVO crowd does not allow that either. Still not sure where you fit in, Jim. Pretty sure where some of the others do, though.

WOW! Again three more posts while I was writing! Of course I have been writing for hours and hours here.

(continued)

SJ. A few posts above. Sorry, did not mean to take liberty or put words into your mouth. I will admit that I do feel a little persecuted on this issue and that can cause a bit of an emotional response.

No, I do not think the KJV is an attempt to “change the direction of Christianity”. Neither do I believe the MV’s (some of them anyway) are an attempt to do that. They follow ancient MSS that I do not have full confidence in, but none of those men who worked on translation were attempting to change any direction. To argue such a thing YOU must demonstrate where such attempts exist! As far as that goes, there are a few places where the KJV has very little Greek MSS support and some places where it has NO GREEK MSS SUPPORT! I revert to the Greek. To do otherwise is to hold to secondary inspiration of the KJV.

Yes, there are some places where the NIV and the NAS follow A and B rather than the Majority Text. I am not sure they are always wrong. BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME PLACES WHERE THE NIV HAS “BLOOD” AND THE KJV DOES NOT!!! Why did the KJV translators take it out? I would contend that nobody “took” the blood out! Even in the NAS and NIV there are many references to “the blood”! If they were seeking to pervert the faith, they would have to take all of them out!

NOW THE TNIV IS A DIFFERENT COLOR HORSE ALTOGETHER!!! The translators/editors deliberately set out to create a “gender neutral” translation that was more in tune with the modern spirit of political correctness. That is translation with a bias and not based of different text forms. I have a serious problem with that!

Not sure what your question re John 1:12 in the KJV and the NIV is? “Power” there is exousia, authority, not dunamis, resident inherent power as in Rom 1:16. We have the power, right, authority to be sons (and daughters, therefore the inclusive children) of God based on our personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Sorry, maybe because I have translated and studied this one in the Greek, I see less of a conflict between the two. There is no textual problem (A, B, vss Byzantine) here in the verse. It is a matter of rendering the words from Greek to English. All translators must make the decision to translate according to the literal words or the meaning. In my “frog in the throat” illustration I explained earlier – for those who can’t remember all that, again – if I was speaking in France and said, “I have a frog in my throat...” the translator would say, “he has a cat in his throat”. WHAT! THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID! No, but French uses a different idiom. If he translated literally, no one would understand. If he wants to convey the sense of what I said, he would say “cat” not “frog”. Such is a simple illustration. I think this is the difference between the KJV and the NIV here.

Same in John 3:16. And I have read all the rantings against that one, but the KJV translators themselves render the word monogenes as “only son”, “only daughter”, and “only child” in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38. This is not an attack on either the Deity or the Uniqueness of Jesus. You may like the KJV wording better, I do myself. But the NIV is not a contradiction or a perversion! If the Holy Spirit could lead and guide the KJV translators, were they the last ones he could do that with? Incidently NAS has the exact same wording as the KJV with the exception of “believes” instead of “believeth” in John 3:16. If it was all an assault on the person of Christ, why did they do that?

The perfect was the complete word of God. It was no longer partial. The Mosaic Law was partial and it was “done away”, katargeo(w) (1Cor 13:10 and 2Cor 3:7). We have full revelation of the Lord Jesus and the completed word. The OT was partial and we are no longer bound to it in the same way. This is not the same as kataluo(w) (Matt 5:17)! Cannot see how someone can apply this one to the KJV vss MV issue.

Raymond,
Thanks for the links. And NO, I do not think that the WH text is superior to the Majority Text (not identical to the TR). Further, I am pretty sure that Scofield and Ryrie both deviate from the Alexandrius and Siniaticus at times. It is not as simple as WH vss TR. There are more text forms than those and even variations within the families. I have read pretty broadly on all sides of this issue and do not fully agree with any ONE. Most have some good things to say. On the other hand, some only criticize anybody who disagrees. I look for the content of the arguement, not the force with which it is presented. The one who yells the loudest may not be right.

Wonder which side av1611.com is going to take? Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic. I will check it out, gotta finish this little book before I try to read another!

Jim,
Some good info. Very good to compare the ancient versions and translations.

Re the LXX. Of course it has Alexandrian roots! It was translated in Alexandria. In 3rd cent BC it was the center of learning for the ancient world. Not to worry though, Origin was not born for another 500 years or so (not that I accept all that has been written about his corrupting the text either! There are other ancient sources besides A and B. Sorry, A & B is a general ref to the oldest MSS, cannot type the Hebrew aleph). It is a mistake to conclude that WH followed A & B without regard for the papyri which predate both uncials and miniscules. Even WH did not always follow A & B, though they generally did.

Glad to see you have read some about the “comma johanneum” and thanks for pointing out that I had written 4:7-8 not 5:7-8 in an earlier post. IN ALL THERE ARE ONLY TWO GREEK MSS THAT HAVE THE PHRASE IN THE TEXT AND TWO MORE THAT HAVE IT AS A MARGINAL NOTATION. 23 years ago when I was ordained one of the preachers on my examining council was a Ruckmanite. When I commented on that passage he got redder and redder. His opinion was the minority opinion so he did not show at my actual ordination.

WRONG!!! ALL MV’S ARE NOT TRANSLATED EXCLUSIVELY FROM AND OR BASED ON MSS FROM ALEXANDRIA!!! THAT IS ONE YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE READ IT. Sometimes they may follow MSS other than the Byzantine Majority Text type, but NO textual decisions are made based on one, two, or even a few MSS. This is the kind of “misinformation” that is perpetrated by some KJVO preachers that will completely turn me of to their writings or site. Someone who has researched no more deeply than that should not be writing or publishing on the issue! I will excuse you since you are just getting you feet good and wet here. I do not excuse someone like Riplinger, Waite, or Hunt for making the same kind of a statement. Could probably almost excuse Riplinger, even though she claims to be an authority since her grad. degree is in Home Economics not Theology! However, the vast amount of error in her works does tend to make her more accountable than the others. NOBODY gets as much wrong as she does! Well, maybe Ruckman does.

Regarding the altering of the Alexandrian, don’t believe all you read there either. When attacks are made based on character it sometimes indicates a lack of substance on the real issues. Not to say that character does not matter, only that sometimes people resort to name calling when they have nothing more substantial to offer! Be wary of emotionally charged language. People who must make their point by an emotional attack and a showy presentation do not always have the evidence to support their conclusions.

In spite of what I have just said, I do not follow A and B above the MT (Majority Text). Just don’t believe everything you read. Read the other side to evaluate all the information. Not for the weak at heart or intellect, though.

Re flawed and unflawed, those are words used by some in the KJVO camp to refer to anything but the KJV. I do not believe that God has chosen to protect and preserve His word without some introduction of human error. I do believe that godly men who have dedicated their lives both to the author and the discipline of learning have done the Church of Jesus Christ a great service in providing us with texts and translations that are trustworthy. By that I mean, there are good translations available that if wholly followed and completely trusted will never disappoint or fail. No doctrine is so “at risk” that it depends on the KJV or any other text or translation for its preservation. Here we go, get out the tar and feathers, just when you thought maybe you were following along. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NIV OR THE NAS ARE BAD TRANSLATIONS THAT DISTORT THE TRUTH OF GOD!!! I think that at some points they follow inferior MSS. I do not believe that anyone will be led to hell by the NAS or the NIV.

Jim, again,
Thank you for your kind words in your most recent post, just above this.

We have NO ORIGINALS (AUTOGRAPHS, first one). The oldest Greek is a small fragment of John’s Gospel dating from early to mid 2nd century (130–170 AD). Oldest Hebrew is probably the Dead Sea Scrolls. NO ORIGINAL KJV’s or translator’s notes either. Been gone for centuries. We do have some original correspondence from some of the KJV translators, though. That is how we know about Bancroft’s 14 changes to the text before printing.

You are a little more clear on “perfection” now and I believe us to be closer than I had thought. Pro’lly should not have said that. Some others may get mad at you now!

I am in full agreement with your allusion to Psalm 19:14, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.”

I do not wish to offend my brothers in Christ. But I must answer to my Lord, not them. I fully believe that when truth is spoken it serves to illuminate and to divide. It divides night from day and light from dark. It divides men who are committed to the Word from men who are committed to tradition. So be it.

sola scriputra, sola gratia, sola deo gratia
semper reformanda

my close?

Scripture Alone, by Grace Alone, to God Alone Glory
and my own little addition,
always reforming...


pro'lly shu'da added, "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin. But he that refraineth his lips is wise"!!!

This post was last modified: Wed Sep 08, 2004 04:06 PM by RJP.

Jim,
Do you still want me to address John 1?

Wait for a moment on that one, still looking up references and stuff on your other posts. I'm going to get to the bottom of this within my own heart before I tackle other things....

Jim

Actually, this may surprise you, but I did not use only KJVO sites to get my information. I used some anti-KJV sites also....

Jim

Anti KJV sites? or anti-KJVO sites? Have not seen to many that were anti-KJV.

Man, we are getting in deep here with a lot of unanswered questions. I am going to add more, sorry.


Let me ask you this, What makes people who defend the the Alexandrian vs. the Byzantine vs. the Western, etc. any more correct than the vice-versa? Yes, I know the same can be asked of the others. But, who as we are, can say one of them is any more right? We are the ones that our basing our arguments on their studies. As someone put earlier, ALmost ALL arguments are based off of other peoples' works.

Also, Let me ask a new question in a different light....

Being the Bible is the Word of God, would Satan not see that as the perfect thing to attack to keep christians from growing and to be ineffective? Do you think he would never be effective in doing this? If he is effective how would he have done it? I would probably hasve someone translate in the guise of good purpose, and have an external agenda. Is that not common sense? If this is so, which translation was it done to? He has the power to manipulate anything in this world of man & flesh. If the bible is, as you say, just text and words, how would it be immune from satanic attack? A good example would be the character of the people who translated the texts. Who are they, Could they have implemented something incorrectly with an agenda, or would God have not allowed this according to Psalms 119:89 which says, "For ever, O LORD, thy WORD is settled in heaven."
and Matthew 24:35 which reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away."
and Psalms 138:2 which says, ". . . for thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name."

Another thing... If the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are any good, why are they so fragmented, that they are almost non-legible and missing more leaves than they have? If God will preserve His Word, this seems to be an excellent example of Him not allowing a bad text to be preserved. Also, if they were any good, why were they found in a trash can(this is a true stement by the catholics who have the codex's in their possession)in a monstary? Also, why were they missing for almost a two thousand years? They weren't any good to anyone being gone that long. Seems to me an excellent example of God keeping something away to keep His Word preserved.


Also, I do think we were getting into semantics on the "growth" issue. I agree that the text is fixed and not changing, the growth by God's Word is ever changing our spirits to conform us closer to the Holy Spirit. That is what I meant by growing, should have been more clear. Maybe I am changing a little, making myself more clear to myself.

"Growth of God's Word" and "Perfection of God's Word" seem to be two topics we probably agree on, but do not seem to be clarified to either party by either party, no fault of anyone's. Just a misunderstanding.

The only problem I have RJP, is still the fact of the MV's not being God's preserved Word. I think that is the only one, other than you are kind of coming across, to me anyway, that you are accepting all, judging nothing. That seems dangerous to me to be in a rush to approve of any new thing brought our way. Being christians, we MUST "try all spirits":

"I Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."


Because:

1 Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ

2 Pet 2:1-3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2 Pet 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

2 Pet 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever

2 Pet 2:20-22 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matt 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Praying that I will please my Lord,

Jim

This post was last modified: Thu Feb 24, 2005 06:28 PM by Jim.

I am going to inject one more line of thinking here. I do not believe the bible can actually be translated properly today. The Greek we know of today, I do not believe it will translate properly like it would 2000, 1000, or even 500 years ago. No matter how hard we try to get it accurate, I do not think it would translate properly. I think the translators in the 1600's probably had it more right than we ever could today. "The further you move from something, the less clear it becomes"

These are my worldy thoughts, not backed up by any scripture, so maybe they are foolish.

Jim

Can't deal with your long post other than to say that no I do not accept all MSS. Yes there are Bad translations out there. NWT is a bad translation as is the TNIV. Darby, Webster, Young are good translations in general. I like some renderings in J.B. Philips. The Amplified is a good paraphrase. The Living Bible is a poor paraphrase. From what I know of the Net Bible, which is a little, I believe it to be a good translation.

NO I have not done much original MSS examination. Most of the really old ones are untouchable any way. I have examined, turned the pages, looked up the comma johanneum in an actual original of Erasmus's 3rd edition and looked at the notation in the margin in Latin. Have never touched a papyrus of the NT. Have examined some old Bibles including original Geneva, KJV's, a "she" KJV, and some others. Have seen some original pages (sealed) of some ancient MSS. Have seen (in person) some of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Jerusalem. Have visited the site of the cave from which they were removed in Qumran.

Regarding original research. I have a copy of F.H.A.Schrivener's index of the revisions to the 1611 KJV which also notes the various Greek Texts they followed in their translation, with words like "The translators boldy followed Beza's reading here..." He is THE source on KJV changes, editions, the Texts they followed, etc. His work is available to be double checked, but he is for the most part the final authority that everyone goes to. He was key in the preparation of a TR that follows the KJV. The KJV did not follow one single Greek Text, but I am pretty sure that it was Schrivener who prepared the text that follows the KJV. It was his life’s work. NOBODY can do all original research about a subject so broad as the Text of the NT, let alone the OT.

I am not sure how many different Greek texts I have, both in print and electronic. Probably over a dozen, maybe up to 18 or 20. We are building at the church and much of my library is boxed.

Regarding the Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus I am aware of their histories and have researched them from many different angles. I have the Addenda to the Aland Black UBS 3 GNT with a lot of the technical data regarding their decisions as to which text to follow (book is almost as thick as the GNT text itself). I have the electronic version of the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text which usually follows the Byzantine Text. I have numerous other Greek Texts, Grammars, dictionaries, etc. That is a good bit more "original research" than reading what everybody else has written, but I have done a lot of that as well. Certainly way more than enough to know not to believe everything I see in print. I always try to find the best arguments I can find for each side of an issue, do more background research and then take a position. If I have not read the best the other side has to offer I may overlook a weakness in my own position. SO I had better read their best. I am a pastor, not a seminary professor or a researcher supported by grants. I do not have time to do all the original research I would like. Men spend their entire lives specializing on just one book of the Bible and still cannot exhaust the subject or the material.

Reading a couple of books on the KJV issue does not make one an authority. I have easily read 25 to 30 books on textual issues from a variety of perspectives. I have thousands of pages of articles. I am NOT an expert. I am NOT a scholar. I AM A STUDENT of the Word. I believe that as much as time has allowed, I have been a diligent student. I know more about it that some, but much much less than many others.

And yes, to some degree, all of our arguments and positions are a reflection of “other peoples work”. Solomon said “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). The question is, HOW BROAD AND HOW DEEP IS THE RESEARCH WE DO INTO THEIR WORK. Do we seek alternate sources to either validate or deny the claims of a favorite writer? Or do we take what he writes at face value because many others say the same thing? They may all have one flawed source. Or, do we dig deeper to find out why they make the claims they did and if their research principles and foundations are solid? My wife teaches college level Statistics. If you do not follow good research and mathematical principles it is possible to make stats say almost anything you want them to. Some have approached this with preconceived notions they are trying to validate or pet writers they are seeking to af firm. That is not a good foundation for making good judgments.

Where is the Holy Spirit in all this? He is right here with me, on my side! Both of us are wondering what’s wrong with some of these other guys! (Hope everyone understands that is said tongue in cheek.) What makes someone else’s claim any more valid than my own?

Regarding the KJV translators being better able to judge Greek word meanings than we are today, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE! (Oh, by the way, your words are not foolish I have heard the idea advanced by many others. It would seem, at first glance to make good sense. However, WE HAVE THOUSANDS MORE GREEK NT MSS TO COMPARE! THOUSANDS MORE ANCIENT VERSIONS AND QUOTATIONS OF THE NT IN OTHER SOURCES. NOT ONLY THAT WE HAVE THOUSANDS MORE SECULAR GREEK MSS TO GIVE US BETTER INSIGHT INTO WORD MEANINGS. The more a word is used in a variety of settings the better we can understand it’s meaning from the context in which we find that word. An example. When I got up this morning I took a shower and put on clean rytels. Do you know what rytels are? I hope not, I believe it is a word I just made up to describe something that should be clear after several more uses of the word. It is almost 10 pm now and I will soon take off my rytels and put them in the dirty clothes hamper. I knelt down outside earlier today and got a grass stain on my rytels. Some days in cooler weather, I can wear a pair of rytels twice before having to wash them. Once I left my wallet in my rytels and it went through the washing machine. Now I check my rytels carefully before putting them in the laundry hamper. I hope you have figure out what rytels are by now.

With hundreds more uses in contemporary (that day) Greek literature we can get a better understanding of word meanings. At no age prior to this one has the ability to gather, sort, and collate material been so readily available. My shirt pocket PDA (personal digital assistant, a “Palm Computer” type device has more memory in a chip than my first PC had on the hard drive. I have a “pen drive” in my pocket that is about the size of small tube of chapstick that has 6 times the storage capacity of that hard drive. The one that has only 3 times the storage of my first hard drive went through the wash in my rytels pocket. Didn’t even phase it one bit. Dried it off, plugged it in, back up and running no problems. It too is in my rytels pocket even as I am typing. SO, NO. THE KJV TRANSLATORS WERE IN NO WHERE NEAR THE POSITION THAT MODERN BIBLE SCHOLARS ARE. THEY DID NOT HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES THAN TODAY. These are the reasons I reject your line of reasoning on the short post.

Gotta be up in about 7 hours. Bye for now. Probably won’t get to post tomorrow. Will be away from my PC. Besides, my fingers are tired! And my brain is about fried. My 14 year old son does not believe that all the circuits are still making contact anyway. “ Paddling with one oar” is an expression my 18 year old likes to use. “Seat tray will not return to the full upright and locked position”; “A few fries short of a complete happy meal”; you get the idea.

God bless all and good night.

Well, I have been studying consistently now. If anything comes of this, I certainly can say I am a better person for it. I am even learning Greek! Never thought I would try that in a million years.. but it actually is not that hard.

Anyway. A point I am trying ot make here is the fact that we had manuscripts, papyrii, scrolls, and parchments. All of these which contained the GNT. For arguments sake, as we take in mind Achems Razor we can say, the more you add to something, the more possibility for fault there is, generally speaking. Examples: the more people you have in a group, the more ideas good and bad, the more apples you pour in a basket the bigger the chance of spoiling or having one that is bad, etc. This line of thinking can be judged and dismissed, but is a question in my mind nevertheless.

I agree completely. What I don't agree with is the line of argument some people put forth that the KJV translators used Erasmus' text for their study. I have found no basis for this argument. As you have said the main text utilized for the KJV was in fact Beza's compilation of the TR. Stephanus and Elziver's TR's were also consulted. As far as I have found, these are the three TR's the KJV almost solely utilized, except that if I am not mistaken, they also utilized many other G manuscripts and parchments.

I have the online bible in software now that includes just about every version and GNT and HOT, that has ever been talked about. It seems to be very nice, I am still learning to use it, but it will come in time.

I agree to a point here, however, we will never know the whole truth of the "Codex's"(Aleph, A, B, etc.) Lke you said too, the Vatican holds one, Great Britain holds another, etc. What if they were really intended to be thrown away? Just because they "parallel" somewhat the other manuscripts, how do we know they are good? I think people are so intent on bucking the accepted method, their state of mind will accept anything, however wrong, to support their desires. In this case, the Bible.

Do you not think you can have too much of something? Do you not think we are being flooded with all of this now for Satan to attack us and keep us from what is important, ministering to others? Can we not get so caught up in our own legalism, e.g. old manuscripts, GNT's etc. that we lose sight of our one purpose, preaching the Gospel? I firmly believe in my heart, all of these manuscripts being found is simply to cause division among believers to make them less effective witnesses.

Do you believe in your heart that these newer manuscripts have given us a better Word of God? If not, why then all of these discussions? If so, how can we be given something better as time passes? This goes against the very laws of nature. This debunks the antagonists of the OKJV theory that "older is better". Oh, and by the way, If I knew the greek language fluently, I would be OKJV,GNT,TR. Which KJV you want to know? Today's KJV I have in my hand. My preference is the 1917 Scofield reference, but I also use my Thompson Chain Reference. Which TR you say? The Beza to be sure. It seems the most accurate to me with my limited knowledge and the references I have seen by others' studies. Which GNT you say? Hah! An unanswerable question by anyone who has not met the writers.

My question stands...

Which manuscripts are accurate. I do not trust any manuscripts found in Egypt according to the knowledge I have now. Show me ANYTHING good that has EVER come out of Alexandria, Egypt that has uplifted the Word of God. Christianity has NEVER thrived in Egypt at all as a state. It has never been persecuted to a large scale to my knowledge, but I may be wrong.

Let me ask you one more thing, and yes this is all worldy thinking, but I believe it has merit. It is commonly accepted that the oldest manuscripts(Codex A,B) found were penned in Egypt by more than likely an Egyptian according to what I have read. Would you more readily accept a manuscript penned in your enemies' camp or your allies' camp? What basis do we have to believe these manuscripts, no matter how old they are, to be an accurate script? This surely debunks the "older is better" claim in my mind. Do we keep forgetting that Satan is the great perverter of scripture? Can you honestly say NOONE has EVER altered the scripture to parallel their way of thinking? If this is possible, where do expect it to more likely happen? Egypt or the Holy Lands?

Can you see where I am going? If we consistently argue our worldly views of this and that, we will never get anywhere. Hmmmmmm..... now I am starting to see the importance of why Jesus was so adamant about our faith.

I believe that to be a little too black and white. Rytels would be considered archaic not a translational issue. I think it interesting how I have always been able to understand "archaic terms" even though I have had no formal training or Greek concordances to refer to. The point is not the words, the point is the scripture all surrounding it. It only takes common sense and more of the Holy Spirit than anything to understand these things.

Here's one: If you read the NIV by the light of the Holy Spirit, it doesn't make any sense. If you read it according to ease of use, it makes perfect sense to the flesh.

If you read the KJV in the light of the Holy Spirit, things are revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. If you read it in your flesh, you will never understand it like it is meant to be understood.

I believe these verses:

1 Corinthians 2
"9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

If God is not referring to the things discovered in His Word, what is He referring to?

God is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit revealing His "hidden things" to our spirit that we in our flesh cannot discern. If this is true, why do we turn to the "Greek Manuscripts" instead of the Holy Spirit to learn?

Better go into other things later,

Glory to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,

Jim