KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed. So to prove validity based upon opinions from either side does no one any good.


The facts are when pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed.

"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.

You know what is interesting, I said in my post "there are many other sources than Aristeas mentioned" and you reacted to that post of mine by talking about Aristeas.

Sometimes I think you just repeat yourself without actually following the flow of convo...

So what about Josephus, Philo, Aristobulus? What about all the encyclopedias and dictionaries (and scholars behind them)?

What about fragments of Septuagint from before Christ. What about DSS? Your Origen forgery theory does not fit to facts.

Also, Origen was well respected Christian scholar, he was not some evil gnostic trying to falsify Scriptures. Not sure why do you try to present him like that. You do not have to agree with his opinions or views, but you cannot just dismiss his character like that. I also do not agree with you but I do not expect you to falsify Bible because of that.

 

[trofimus]

I agree with this. So??

This verse was not directed to you specifically, I just found him and thought it can be useful for the convo.

 

[Joseppi]

Can I ask how it is that you know God is referring to Esau the man rather than Esau the symbolic first born of the flesh?

Esau despised his birthright. That is the cause of the hate.

Genesis 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

To show the hate toward the man Esau...

Obadiah 1:17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

 

[trofimus]

changes were made to improve the grammatical form of the text copied
the most awkward or grammatically unusual text is probably the original

Does not this say that the inspired originals had erorrs, at least grammatical ones?

2. the shortest text is probably the original

I wonder why. Its easier to drop something (by accident) than to (by accident) write more new sentences. But it probably depends on the context. Longer reading of titles - I got it. Not sure about other cases.

 

[trofimus]

The vaticanus was around when the KJV was written, why do you think the KJV translators chose not to use it?

Maybe you will be surprised, but the Roman Church was not willing to land their most precious manuscript to some dark island full of "heretics" somewhere in the north

 

[Joseppi]

NIce work, you answered my question - older means more accurate right? How old is the oldest copies we have?

A large well kept older text means it was a corrupt, unused ecclesiastical text.

 

[MarcR]

So you are saying that you all of these bibles are wrong and you are right concerning Luke 1:3?

Geneva Bible
King James Bible
RSV
ASV
NASB
NIV
HCSB
ESV
NKJV to name just a few!

Did they also translate this verse more "clumsily than first semester students" as the King James Bible translators did?

Both Thayer and Arndt & Gingrich mention 'from the first' as a controversial second meaning for anothen.
Thayer accepts its use in Luk 1:3; while Arndt & Gingrich concede it is possible. It is not found in the Koine Greek; but Luke as an educated Macedonian might have used some classical Greek. Did you note that the RSv, ASV, NASB, NIV, HCSB and ESV follow my reading in all other respects. I don't represent myself as infallible; and 'from above' is still the most accepted meaning of anothen.

 

[Angela53510]

NIce work, you answered my question - older means more accurate right? How old is the oldest copies we have?

I believe the Ryland’s Papyrus is the oldest extant text! It is dated to between 125-175 AD and has a few verses from John 18. It is only a fragment, but so close in time to the original autographs.

You can read more at this short link.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html

 

[Angela53510]

Does not this say that the inspired originals had erorrs, at least grammatical ones?



I wonder why. Its easier to drop something (by accident) than to (by accident) write more new sentences. But it probably depends on the context. Longer reading of titles - I got it. Not sure about other cases.

Part of the reason things were added, was because of the Byzantine scribes. They loved to add things, harmonize between the 4 gospels make comments in the margins, which got incorporated into the text in the next generation. Plus, they felt it was important to have a high Christiology, so where just the name, “Jesus” appeared, they would add, “the Lord Jesus” or even “the Lord Jesus Christ.”

There was no compunction on the part of the Byzantine scribes to copy exactly, they felt they were part of the process, and that the additions made the text clearer. This falls under the “intention” changes!

 

[John146]

You know what is interesting, I said in my post "there are many other sources than Aristeas mentioned" and you reacted to that post of mine by talking about Aristeas.

Sometimes I think you just repeat yourself without actually following the flow of convo...

So what about Josephus, Philo, Aristobulus? What about all the encyclopedias and dictionaries (and scholars behind them)?

What about fragments of Septuagint from before Christ. What about DSS? Your Origen forgery theory does not fit to facts.

Also, Origen was well respected Christian scholar, he was not some evil gnostic trying to falsify Scriptures. Not sure why do you try to present him like that. You do not have to agree with his opinions or views, but you cannot just dismiss his character like that. I also do not agree with you but I do not expect you to falsify Bible because of that.

What I was meaning was I could list sources as the article did, but they are all after the fact. The fact is that there is no proof, absolutely none, of the existence of such manuscript. There are no fragments of the Septuagint before from before Christ. That is just false information that you have read. There is a lot of assumption, but no evidence.

Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less.

The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[John146]

Well, seeing God does not change, and His love is an eternal love, world in John 3:16 does not equal all whoever lived.


We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God’s people—the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospelthat has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.[Colossians 1:3-6]

’Whole world’ here can NOT mean all whoever lived. Many died in remote areas when Paul wrote this, and never heard the gospel.

Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[KJV1611]

As I expected, an honest answer!

Two questions remain:

1) were those changes errors or were they inspired? I don't believe that they were inspired but I will honestly consider anything you present in support of such a notion.

2) do the instructions that James gave the translators leave room for special inspiration

I don't think so! Again, I will honestly consider anything you present in support of such a notion.

I'm impressed and well pleased MarcR, most people would not even entertain the idea that the changes could have been inspired.

As far as number 2 goes, I think God establishes all governments and rulers and I believe he has complete control over their actions, so if God wanted the KJV translators to use a certain word in a certain place, king James couldn't stop it.

As for number 1, I believe the KJV is the exact image God, inerrant and true to God's character. I believe God signed the book using miraculous and intentional number patterns from cover to cover. I believe that God hid DNA and other unknown sciences back in the day of the writings to prove that the bible's authorship was outside of time and space.

I believe God changed or rather updated certain words to denote special events that an uninspired translator could have never picked up on. Easter would be one such word. Only the Holy Spirit could show a translator why Easter should be used instead of passover.

 

[KJV1611]

I firmly believe that scripture should always be interpreted literally unless there is a compelling linguistic reason for doing otherwise. In Gal 4:24 we have a compelling linguistic reason. I don't believe that Jesus literally mistook the pharisees for whitewashed coffins.

I disagree but I understand your point. I believe that any time one literal contradicts another literal then one of the literals has to be figurative or else God is a liar. That distinction, is God a liar, forces us to understand which statements are literal and which are figurative.

 

[trofimus]

What I was meaning was I could list sources as the article did

Please, DO IT, finally. We want to know where do you get your info from.

The fact is that there is no proof, absolutely none, of the existence of such manuscript.

Aristobulus, Josephus, Philo, (your hated) Aristeas, the history (Jews used the LXX, Christians used the LXX, they were probably using air instead of it, according to you).

There are no fragments of the Septuagint before from before Christ.

Ryland's Papyrus
Yes, its a fragment, please, realize how old it is.

Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less.

So, there is some. You answered to your own question.

The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament

How can YOU know and contradict almost all scholars and historians? Again, post your sources.

books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.

Not true. Its accepted also by the orthodox church. And has been accepted by all Christians for 1600 years.

 

[Gracie_14]

hmm… another thread thats clearly on fire… not so bad as the other thread. you know, the one im talking about.

but, whats presented here is interesting. cant be bothered to read through 24 pages though lol

 

[KJV1611]

Esau despised his birthright. That is the cause of the hate.


To show the hate toward the man Esau...

Obadiah 1:17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

So do you think God hates every person who descended from Esau or could Obadiah maybe be referring to the flesh or first born and Jacob is the second born... that's what I believe the case is. And really to go a little deeper with those verses, Esau represents flesh Israel and Jacob represents spiritual Israel but that's another topic lol.

 

[KJV1611]

Maybe you will be surprised, but the Roman Church was not willing to land their most precious manuscript to some dark island full of "heretics" somewhere in the north

Is it really true that the KJV translators didn't have access to those writings because I'm pretty sure I read that they did but they rejected the text.

 

[Gracie_14]

So do you think God hates every person who descended from Esau or could Obadiah maybe be referring to the flesh or first born and Jacob is the second born... that's what I believe the case is. And really to go a little deeper with those verses, Esau represents flesh Israel and Jacob represents spiritual Israel but that's another topic lol.

ohhh… isn't this cool? i was just studying about Obadiah yesterday a book called Unlocki ng the Bible by David Pawson has a study about every book in the Bible, so you could have a better understanding of it. and of course i happened ro be reading Obadiah and didnt really understand how it applies to us. but, of course it does with the Esuas ans Jacobs living in this world. but i have no time to go through it all

 

[KJV1611]

A large well kept older text means it was a corrupt, unused ecclesiastical text.

While that could be true, I think that argument is as lame as "older is more accurate" lol.

 

[trofimus]

Is it really true that the KJV translators didn't have access to those writings because I'm pretty sure I read that they did but they rejected the text.

Vaticanus:
How could they have access to the Vatican Library, being protestants in far away England under the "heretic" king? Just a logical question. Even RCC priest and a prominent continental European scholar Erasmus could not get it.

Sinaiticus:
Was discovered in 19th century. Monastery did not want to give it so even the Russian Tzar had to be involved.
Logically, KJV translators did not have this one in England in 1611.

---

KJV onlyism is based on many silly claims, be careful what you read as a proof of it.