See here.

[ronniechoate34]

1Co:1:25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co:1:26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co:1:28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co:1:29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.


“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with that villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS [manuscripts]; it is a blessing there are such early ones.- Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 2, p. 211



Some excellent points to consider there.

 

[kiwimac]

More KJV-only nonsense, I see.

 

[ronniechoate34]

More KJV-only nonsense, I see.

Since when did it become nonsense?


Oh...You tell those guys at WIWATTC that I wanted to give them something, and this is it.


Psalms:119:105: Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.


Thy Word is a what? A lamp, a light no less.

 

[Vince]

For the record, there are approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of the New Testament.

All but 25 are either:

1) The Received Text
2) The Received Text with spelling errors (by far the most common type of Greek manuscripts)
3) The Received Text with newer Greek words that meant the same thing as the originals. Some of these manuscripts were written as late as the seventh century and were using a more modern type of Greek.

The Received Text, the inspired and preserved Word of God, never died out, never came close to dying out, and never needed wicked men to correct it. It has always been the Greek New Testament of Bible Christianity.

 

[follower of Christ]

More KJV-only nonsense, I see.

Confused.
The KJV is based on the TR so how could the anti TR remarks in the OP be KJV only ?

 

[follower of Christ]

1Co:1:25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co:1:26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co:1:28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co:1:29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.


“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with that villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS [manuscripts]; it is a blessing there are such early ones.- Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 2, p. 211



Some excellent points to consider there.

Very confusing.
Are you bashing the Textus Receptus that the KJV NT is partially based on...or being sarcastic ?
Maybe if youd explain your argument we'd know what it is we're discussing

.

 

[follower of Christ]

For the record, there are approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of the New Testament.

All but 25 are either:

1) The Received Text
2) The Received Text with spelling errors (by far the most common type of Greek manuscripts)
3) The Received Text with newer Greek words that meant the same thing as the originals. Some of these manuscripts were written as late as the seventh century and were using a more modern type of Greek.

The Received Text, the inspired and preserved Word of God, never died out, never came close to dying out, and never needed wicked men to correct it. It has always been the Greek New Testament of Bible Christianity.

This isnt exactly accurate.
For example, the TR/RT has the Johannine Comma that isnt actually supported by the Majority Texts that the TR is supposedly derived from. It is only present in a couple manuscripts and then its not until later ones, which would indicate that it was a copyist insertion/error.
Ironically, it is the Latin texts that support the Comma.

And friend, you cant really argue this about the TR without arguing it for the underlying Majority Texts and also for the word of God to begin with.
Whether it 'died out' is irrelevant.
All that is actually relevant is whether it represents the original autographs or not..

 

[ronniechoate34]

1Co:1:25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co:1:26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co:1:28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co:1:29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.


“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with that villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS [manuscripts]; it is a blessing there are such early ones.- Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 2, p. 211



Some excellent points to consider there.

Very confusing.
Are you bashing the Textus Receptus that the KJV NT is partially based on...or being sarcastic ?
Maybe if youd explain your argument we'd know what it is we're discussing

.

The Authorized Bible is based on the Masoretic texts and the Textus Receptus. That's all that it is based on. Unless you mean the New KJV which isn't wholly based on those two lines of manuscript.

 

[follower of Christ]

And I'll go ahead and pull out of this thread as Im not interested in a KJVonly debate today.

TO THE READERS...dont get caught up in this nonsense as God didnt speak Ye Kings Olde English.
The only texts that actually have the ability to claim absolute perfection with no chance of error are the original autographs themselves.
We trust that GOD has protected His word since those are no longer with us and that He has guided our translators to keep the language up to date.

This absurd view that only one bible version is 'Gods word' is ridiculous....what if I speak Swahili ? Am I just crap out of luck ?

.

 

[follower of Christ]

The Authorized Bible is based on the Masoretic texts and the Textus Receptus.

Since you got this one in before I could give my goodbyes to this ridiculous KJVonly nonsense, Ill respond
Authorized by whom ? God ?
If so, can you show us this authorization for these texts only ?

The Johannine Comma alone is enough to convict the KJV as not being 100% true to the original texts...

That's all that it is based on. Unless you mean the New KJV which isn't wholly based on those two lines of manuscript.

Wrong...and had you done your study youd have known better.
The KJV translators looked to as many contemporary translations as they could find in doing their work.
I suggest some fact finding on your part before someone is forced to dig it up for you and you end up with egg on your face.

.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Wrong...and had you done your study youd have known better.
The KJV translators looked to as many contemporary translations as they could find in doing their work.
I suggest some fact finding on your part before someone is forced to dig it up for you and you end up with egg on your face.

.

Actually no.. they didn't. They didn't use all of the resources available to them because they didn't believe them to be all accurate. That's true and easily proven.


Don't expect much response from me.

 

[Vince]

Actually, the Johannine Comma is NOT part of the Received Text. Erasmus, after swearing to insert it if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript that contained it, was shown a Greek manuscript translated from the latin Vulgate.

Feeling that he must keep his oath, Erasmus inserted it into a later edition of his Received Text, with a footnote explaining that the verse is spurious.

But Erasmus did not write or invent the Received Text, the inspired and preserved Word of God, and he could neither add nor subtract from it.

 

[follower of Christ]

Actually no.. they didn't. They didn't use all of the resources available to them because they didn't believe them to be all accurate. That's true and easily proven.

Don't expect much response from me.

Uh, actually they DID reference other translations at the time.

And one question I have for you is IF this 'authorized' version was so 'inspired' then what happened to the Apocrypha ? Does the bible you use have it ? It certainly better if your claiming inspiration since the 1611 version contained it. If not then you certainly ARENT using the 'authorized' version as it was originally presented.

Apocrypha

The 1611 version of the KJV had 80 books because it was published with the Catholic Apocrypha. If someone demands that the work of the 1611 translators were inspired by God and are infallible, they must also accept the Catholic Apocrypha or stand in contradiction of their own claims. In reality, the KJV translators were a part of the established church of the day and translated the entire church Bible including the apocrypha. The apocrypha was not accepted as canonical but was used by the established church from around the 3rd century until the Reformation period and is still accepted in the Catholic Church today. However, the point to be noted is that the KJV only debate claims that the 1611 translation was infallible, yet rejects the apocrypha. Both cannot be true.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

 

[follower of Christ]

Errors and Corrections

In 1611, two versions of the KJV made it to press. This created a controversy that was not resolved until the Oxford Standard Edition was published in 1769. This version is the standard that most people use today. One example of the two varying 1611 versions is Ruth 3:15. One printing read, "he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he [Boaz] went into the city." The other read, "and she [Ruth] went into the city." The text allows for both and since the context is not completely clear, modern translators still are divided on which is accurate.



In 1613 over 300 variants were corrected from the original 1611 version. One printing of the KJV had one of the 10 commandments which read, “thou shalt commit adultery. This was soon labeled the “wicked Bibleâ€. In another printing, the error was made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, "the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God," and was soon called the Unrighteous Bible. In 1702 the England Puritan leader said that “scandalous errors†has affronted the Holy Bible itself.



The 1611 has undergone various revisions that intended to improve the text. For example, Matthew 16:16 in the 1611 version said, “Thou art Christ†and was revised to read, “Though art the Christâ€. Mark 5:6 said, “He came and worshiped†in 1611 but was revised to read, “he ran and worshipedâ€. As you can see, these changes are minor and do not alter the doctrine, but it does show that even the translators and publishers of the KJV recognized the need to sharpen the translation for accuracy and readability. Another example of modernizing for the reader is Psalm 23. Here is the 1611 edition of this passage:

The LORD is my shepheard, I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousness, for his names sake.

Yea, though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou annointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.

Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for euer.



It is not uncommon for people to refer to the KJV as the 1611 Authorized version, but this is not entirely accurate. It is based on the 1611 version, but it has been revised repeatedly from 1611 until 1769 when Oxford University published the Oxford Standard edition that was accepted and remains until today.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

 

[follower of Christ]

KJV Corrected the Original

I also have repeatedly heard the claim that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit and corrected the errors in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic text. In reality, the translators borrowed information and used work from those before them. This is perfectly acceptable in writing as long as credit is giving to those who have done the work. Biblical historian Laura H. Wild states:

A few of Wyclif's phrases are here [in the KJV], but Tyndale is largely responsible for the Bishops' Bible which was used as its foundation. [Through the Great Bible] Coverdale put his delicate touch on [the KJV, and] the sturdy tone of the Geneva Text and the sonorous Latinisms of the Rhemish New Testament modified certain sentences. But Tyndale was the genius who penetrated to the very heart of the Scripture, finding priceless treasures, then sent it on its way in English waters like a ship laden with life-giving fruits.

This agrees with the title pages written by the translators of the 1611 printing of the KJV:

The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Majesties speciall Commandement. Appointed to be read in Churches.

The translators themselves testify that they carefully compared their work with the work of the text available to them and the work of former translators. They did not supernaturally begin to write, but they studied all available information and put together the best possible translation by using well respected scholars and previous work of others. Once they finished the translation, they did not rush it to press, but read the text and argued among themselves for months over the correct wording and hashed out their educated assumptions as to the meaning of each line of text.

Even after agreeing on a translation, they did not claim infallibility or divine accomplishment. There were seventeen thousand cross references and marginal notes, which dealt solely with linguistic and textual matters such as alternative renderings or variant readings from other manuscript sources. As we will discuss a bit later, there are multiple words that can be rendered from most Greek or Hebrew words. Based on the context of the passage, historical settings and other variables a translator assumes the meaning that was intended.

Another consideration is that most of the text the King James Version draws upon is Latin. In the 19th century, archaeology unveiled thousands of 1st and 2nd century manuscripts that were not available in the 1500s and 1600s.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

 

[jasoncran]

i already locked up one thread from the new poster ronnie. be nice to all here.

 

[follower of Christ]

Actually, the Johannine Comma is NOT part of the Received Text. Erasmus, after swearing to insert it if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript that contained it, was shown a Greek manuscript translated from the latin Vulgate.

Feeling that he must keep his oath, Erasmus inserted it into a later edition of his Received Text, with a footnote explaining that the verse is spurious.

But Erasmus did not write or invent the Received Text, the inspired and preserved Word of God, and he could neither add nor subtract from it.

I realize there are a few different views on the details of the Comma, what supports and what doesnt, and its origins, so I'll leave that to you to figure out. What I do know is that the comma is just one more condemnation against the KJV for having the Comma since the KJV only proponents typically claim that the TR is the Majority Text, yet those texts do not support the Comma in any way that is actually believable.
.

 

[follower of Christ]

Just wanted to toss this out for anyone interested in the Johannine Comma.
This is from a supporter of the Comma. I prefer going to those who oppose what I believe for evidence since they cant argue against their own evidence.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2]
It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

The Comma doesnt really have the support of the Majority Texts that it needs to have any chance of being considered authentic, in my opinion, based on the late dates that it is present.
It makes no sense that someone just up and REMOVED this part of a passage, so how it is absent from so many texts, yet present in so few, tends to evidence that it probably doesnt actually belong in the text.

.

 

[glorydaz]

I've never heard any of this stuff.

I've always read the KJ...not because I thought eveyone should, but because it's been my Bible for forty years. Old dog new tricks, I guess. I've never even heard of this Texas Bible.

I don't think I pay much attention to commas, but I would have noticed had my Bible said to commit adultery. :biglaugh

Anyway...thanks for all the information. I think. LOL

 

[glorydaz]

I've never heard any of this stuff.

I've always read the KJ...not because I thought eveyone should, but because it's been my Bible for forty years. Old dog new tricks, I guess. I've never even heard of this Texas Bible.

I don't think I pay much attention to commas, but I would have noticed had my Bible said to commit adultery. :biglaugh

Anyway...thanks for all the information. I think. LOL

Oops...Textus not Texas.