The King James Bible

[Nehemiah6]

From those within your KJVO camp.

Why don't you give us an actual verifiable quotation which makes such a ridiculous claim?

 

[Nehemiah6]

The issues are that the New Testament in the King James translation of the Bible is translated from badly corrupted manuscripts, that the translation is seriously incorrect in many places...

What you are suggesting is that THE MAJORITY of manuscripts were corrupted and a small MINORITY was pure. Do you realize have nonsensical that sounds? Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to prove this, so a fantasy was fabricated by Westcott & Hort to put forward such an absurd claim.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You have repeatedly recommended the reading of Burgon's study. Have you read James White's The King James Only Controversy (in its second edition presently)?

Whatever James White is he is NOT an actual textual scholar who has actually collated the actual manuscripts. But Burgon and Scrivener spent their lifetime in this endeavor. Further White has been thoroughly debunked so why waste time on him? If you want to know more about why he cannot be trusted, read this. https://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html

As to your closing comment, that goes both ways. I find the dogmatism of the KJVo types does more to turn me off the KJV and leads me to suspect deception somewhere, even if it is inadvertent at this stage.

Given the fact that from 1600 to approx 1900 ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS AND PREACHERS used the King James Bible as their Bible should be sufficient to establish that "deception somewhere" lies with Westcott & Hort.

Check out www.biblestudytools.com and see for yourself that all these commentators used the KJB:

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown

John Lightfoot

John Gill

Matthew Henry

A. T. Robertson

C. I. Scofield

C. H. Spurgeon

John Wesley

Alexander McLaren

 

[preacher4truth]

Why don't you give us an actual verifiable quotation which makes such a ridiculous claim?

So you're being disingenuous, too?

 

[Nehemiah6]

That King Jimmy must be chuckling somewhere at all the attention given to him and his bible

I am really surprised at this puerile comment from you. It is not "King Jimmy's Bible" but the Holy Bible which he only authorized to be translated, since that is what was required at the time.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So you're being disingenuous, too?

And you are trying to avoid giving proper proof about nonsensical statements.

 

[preacher4truth]

Whatever James White is he is NOT an actual textual scholar who has actually collated the actual manuscripts. But Burgon and Scrivener spent their lifetime in this endeavor. Further White has been thoroughly debunked so why waste time on him? If you want to know more about why he cannot be trusted, read this.

The only way White has been debunked is in the mind of a KJVO nut job. It never happened.

Given the fact that from 1600 to approx 1900 ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS AND PREACHERS used the King James Bible as their Bible should be sufficient to establish that "deception somewhere" lies with Westcott & Hort.

Check out www.biblestudytools.com and see for yourself that all these commentators used the KJB:

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown

John Lightfoot

John Gill

Matthew Henry

A. T. Robertson

C. I. Scofield

C. H. Spurgeon

John Wesley

Alexander McLaren

So you use those of the KJV era when that was the most common translation to use, and also the Reformed in your list as Scholars. Scholars you hate, malign, ridicule, and accuse as preaching another Gospel being used by you as proof to back you up?

That's quite the hypocrisy on your part.

"Christian Scholars and Preachers" you say? You've slammed these many times as preaching "another gospel" along with other Reformed brothers and sisters on here.

When you need support they're "Christian Scholars" and when you want to use them as false and malign them for your own purposes they preach "another Gospel."

Unreal but not surprising.

 

[Dino246]

Whatever James White is he is NOT an actual textual scholar who has actually collated the actual manuscripts. But Burgon and Scrivener spent their lifetime in this endeavor. Further White has been thoroughly debunked so why waste time on him? If you want to know more about why he cannot be trusted, read this. https://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html

...

I am sincerely disappointed by this response.

 

[MarcR]

Where did you come up with this bizarre notion?

People tend to call it common sense, for lack of a better word; even though it is becoming all too uncommon.

 

[MarcR]

Whatever James White is he is NOT an actual textual scholar who has actually collated the actual manuscripts. But Burgon and Scrivener spent their lifetime in this endeavor. Further White has been thoroughly debunked so why waste time on him? If you want to know more about why he cannot be trusted, read this. https://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html

Given the fact that from 1600 to approx 1900 ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS AND PREACHERS used the King James Bible as their Bible should be sufficient to establish that "deception somewhere" lies with Westcott & Hort.

Check out www.biblestudytools.com and see for yourself that all these commentators used the KJB:

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown

John Lightfoot

John Gill

Matthew Henry

A. T. Robertson

C. I. Scofield

C. H. Spurgeon

John Wesley

Alexander McLaren

I agree with you that the TR and the majority text are probably more reliable than Vaticanus or Sinaticus.

I believe that the KJV is the most beautiful and literary of all translations.

I believe that the KJV is at least as accurate as any of the more modern translations.

I do NOT believe that any translation (including the KJV) is uniquely inspired; or that any translation (regardless how poorly translated) is corrupted to the point that God can't use it.

I believe that attacks on other translations do more harm than good to the task of obeying the Great commission.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So you use those of the KJV era when that was the most common translation to use, and also the Reformed in your list as Scholars.

As anyone can verify some of those listed are Reformed and others are not. That is immaterial. We are NOT discussing their theology but their use of the King James Bible as the basis of their commentaries. (BTW apart from their Calvinism, those Reformed men had some very good commentary on the Bible per se, so the only thing I would not accept is their Reformed Theology regarding salvation).

The issue was whether there was any "deception" in putting together the KJV. And it should be obvious from this list that had there been any deception, these men would have brought it to the attention of the world and stopped using the KJB.

On the other hand, hardly anyone informed the Christian world that Westcott & Hort had perpetrated A HOAX. So just so we know where the deception was, I will quote from probably the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- Frederick H.A. Scrivener (who wrote the textbook on textual criticism which is quoted from below). And all modern versions follow W&H.

The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS.WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “New Greek Text.”

(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.”

(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’[Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.”

SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.

The Revision Revised, pp iv, v.

 

[Sagart]

What you are suggesting is that THE MAJORITY of manuscripts were corrupted and a small MINORITY was pure. Do you realize have nonsensical that sounds?

All of the manuscripts that we have that include the entire New Testament are at least partially corrupted; and that, of course, is the reason why we have the discipline known as textual criticism—the discipline of determining the most original version of a text. The manuscripts that comprise what is known today as the Majority Text of the New Testament are of recent origin and are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. A good analogy are coping machines—especially old copy machines. The first copy of an original document will always have some imperfections. When that copy is copied, the resultant second copy will have the imperfections of the first copy, plus imperfections of its own. When that second copy is copied, the resultant third copy will have the imperfections of the first and second copy, plus imperfections of its own. When that third copy is copied, the resultant fourth copy will have …. Therefore, the earlier the copy, the fewer will be the imperfections.

However, even very ancient copies may possibly have many corruptions. Therefore, men and women employed in textual criticism of the Bible examine the variants (variorum readings) in the manuscripts for clues regarding their genuineness. These clues are of many different kinds, and are discussed in detail on various websites about the textual criticism of the Bible. However, textual criticism is not limited to the Bible, but is also applied to the Qur’an, the works of William Shakespeare, and many other writings.

Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to prove this, so a fantasy was fabricated by Westcott & Hort to put forward such an absurd claim.

Not true!

 

[fredoheaven]

You have repeatedly recommended the reading of Burgon's study. Have you read James White's The King James Only Controversy (in its second edition presently)?

As to your closing comment, that goes both ways. I find the dogmatism of the KJVo types does more to turn me off the KJV and leads me to suspect deception somewhere, even if it is inadvertent at this stage.

Hi Dino,

Are there available PDF file on James White Controversy?

For scholarly work, also I highly recommend Revision Revised by Dean John Burgon who have eye-inspected Vaticanus. RR is available in PDF format.

God bless us all.

 

[hornetguy]

Where did you come up with this bizarre notion?

From the 8 or 10 long, long threads that I have been involved with on this very topic. If you had been here long enough to be involved in those discussions as well, you would understand why I say that.

I won't waste my time going back to find a quote that "proves" what I said, but most other people here know why I said it. There are at least 2 or 3 really rabid, vocal KJVO folks on here, and at least 2 of them have either stated or implied that the KJV is the ONLY true word of God, and that if you don't read it, you are not reading the "pure words of God", and will not get the true message that God wants us to have.

If you do not think that there are KJVO people that believe that, then you are deluded, or naïve. Or both.

Not all KJVO people are that far out there, but many are. Many of them are not true KJVO, but simply trust and use the KJVO... but they make no claim that it is the ONLY version we should use... Which is where most truly NON-KJV people are.

I think the KJV is a good translation, probably about as accurate as most people need, or can use, but I think it is written in an archaic language style, which can inhibit many people from understanding things.

We have several better translations now, that are written in the language that we speak in the 21'st century.... but if someone prefers the KJV, it doesn't bother me at all..... unlike the KJVO folks.

 

[Dino246]

Hi Dino,

Are there available PDF file on James White Controversy?

For scholarly work, also I highly recommend Revision Revised by Dean John Burgon who have eye-inspected Vaticanus. RR is available in PDF format.

God bless us all.

Hey Fredo, I don't believe that The King James Only Controversy is available in PDF, because it is still in print. It is available in e-book format though, as are most if not all of Dr. White's books.

 

[John146]

I think the KJV is a good translation, probably about as accurate as most people need, or can use, but I think it is written in an archaic language style, which can inhibit many people from understanding things.

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

There are many lies found in the new bible versions and with these lies reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Do you desire partial truth? Or the whole truth from God?

Although, the simple message of the gospel can be found in most versions, but we also find in them contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and other unsound doctrines.

 

[hornetguy]

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

There are many lies found in the new bible versions and with these lies reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Do you desire partial truth? Or the whole truth from God?

Although, the simple message of the gospel can be found in most versions, but we also find in them contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and other unsound doctrines.

I rest my case, Nehemiah.....

 

[John146]

We have several better translations now, that are written in the language that we speak in the 21'st century.... but if someone prefers the KJV, it doesn't bother me at all..... unlike the KJVO folks.

In other words, keep updating God's word to fit our ever changing language. If we don't understand certain words or phrases, don't study to shew thyself approved unto God, change it to fit our needs.

What "case" needed to be put to rest?

 

[Dino246]

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

There are many lies found in the new bible versions and with these lies reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Do you desire partial truth? Or the whole truth from God?

Although, the simple message of the gospel can be found in most versions, but we also find in them contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and other unsound doctrines.

Please back up your assertion with facts. Rhetoric is not facts.

 

[Locutus]

Please back up your assertion with facts. Rhetoric is not facts.

There are no facts to back up his assertions.

This is more like a case of preferring the old wine rather than new.