Bible Editions

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Moving the target? I am simply stating that these different beliefs are not the fault of the words of God, but failure to heed the command to rightly divide the word of truth.

How can you know with 100% certainty the manuscripts used by the King James Bible translator are 100% error-free? What is the basis for this claim you are making my friend?

 

[John146]

No it does not, my friend. That passage is referring to the King of Babylon.

If you're meaning Nebuchadnezzar than this could be a problem. He became a worshiper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit", but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity. Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell?

I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan's fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan.

 

[Davenport]

You should probably let her know that there are many passages of truth left out of the ESV bible that she will miss out on if she decides to use it.

The ESV isn't perfect, but it's the best general purpose translation available.

I love the KJV, and ironically the best things about the KJV are rarely mentioned by KJVO people. The verses and words allegedly left out of modern version are doctrinally inconsequential. The archaic language of the KJV makes it a poor choice for beginners. The KJV is more than most KJVO people can handle.

 

[John146]

If you compare the King James Bible to the manuscripts used to translate it into English, of course there is no difference. That would be like building a house using blueprints, and then comparing that house to the blueprints used in building it. That is circular reasoning you are using, my friend.

The manuscripts used in the modern versions have been proven to have been written closer to the time of Jesus. Use manuscripts written in 325-350 AD or use manuscripts that were written between 1000-1200 AD? I will go with those written the earliest.

Older does not mean better or more reliable. Which is better, the old covenant under the law or the new covenant under grace?

Do you know why they are older? They were rejected by the early church and considered corrupt. They were never used, handled and read, hence, they survived. The trusted manuscripts (the received text) were read, used and handled, worn out.

 

[John146]

The ESV isn't perfect, but it's the best general purpose translation available.

I love the KJV, and ironically the best things about the KJV are rarely mentioned by KJVO people. The verses and words allegedly left out of modern version are doctrinally inconsequential. The archaic language of the KJV makes it a poor choice for beginners. The KJV is more than most KJVO people can handle.

If it "isn't perfect" then why use it? If it contains errors why use it? How could a "beginner" distinguish between truth and error? Aren't we to believe and trust every word?

Nothing is "inconsequential" when dealing with God's word. Every word should be read, studied, and believed. Can our God preserve His words perfectly in the English language?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

If you're meaning Nebuchadnezzar than this could be a problem. He became a worshiper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit", but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity. Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell?

I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan's fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan.

I believe it to be referring to Belshazzer, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Older does not mean better or more reliable. Which is better, the old covenant under the law or the new covenant under grace?

Do you know why they are older? They were rejected by the early church and considered corrupt. They were never used, handled and read, hence, they survived. The trusted manuscripts (the received text) were read, used and handled, worn out.

Where is your proof of this claim my friend? Link?

 

[John146]

I believe it to be referring to Belshazzer, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.

How did Belshazzer get into heaven?

 

[trofimus]

Do you know why they are older? They were rejected by the early church and considered corrupt. They were never used, handled and read, hence, they survived. The trusted manuscripts (the received text) were read, used and handled, worn out.

What is your definition of "corrupt"?

Also, how can you say today that some manuscript from the 4th century was never used? Its just an unprovable hypothesis you invented.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

If it "isn't perfect" then why use it? If it contains errors why use it? How could a "beginner" distinguish between truth and error? Aren't we to believe and trust every word?

Nothing is "inconsequential" when dealing with God's word. Every word should be read, studied, and believed. Can our God preserve His words perfectly in the English language?

How do you know with 100% certainty the manuscripts used by the King James Bible translators(5 manuscripts of Erasmus, Beza's and Stephanus) are 100% error-free, my friend?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

How did Belshazzer get into heaven?

That passage uses figurative language by the King. I will address this later.

 

[lightbearer]

b) textual variations
There are several textual lines for the Old Testament. Most protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text. Its a text edited and "cleaned" by Jews, its oldest copy is from the 9th century.

Cleaned would imply you are saying they altered. That is a subjective comment. Baseless considering how the Jews viewed Scripture.

Older churches and the first church used the Greek Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures from 300 BC. The oldest copy we have is from the 4th century AD.

They used both. Many quotes in the of the OT are from both. Though if memory serves me correctly there are more word for word quotes from the LXX. However I would not put much stock in that considering both the LXX and the NT are written in the Greek.

There are also discovered scrolls from the Dead Sea, this scrolls witness that in the first century, there were several textual variations used together and it seems that the church chosed one and the Jews chosed another, a less Christ-like text.

Less Christ like text? Another Subjective comment.

The majority text
- its an edition kept mainly by the Eastern Orthodox churches (who use the Greek language from the beginning), its a clean, traditional text, good for liturgical purposes;

Good for public worship? Are you implying that it is not good for anything else? Like personal devotional time?

The minority text
- ancient text of the New Testament from outside the byzantine empire, it was a dominant textual variant for the first Chuch until the islam came and the copy making stopped; because the eastern byzantine empire was not conqured by muslims, their textual variant became majority in time.

Care to back this up with something other than you say so?

Then there is also so called Textus Receptus, an edition made by the RCC priest Erasmus. This is based on just few manuscripts that were accessible in Europe in the 16th century, but most European reformation translations are based on this (as is the KJV), so few people today believe that this text is somehow perfect. And manytimes want to call it the majority text, but it is not.

Your comment is misleading. The Texus Receptus was derived from the Byzantine text (the Majority Text) The few are actually many.

 

[John146]

Where is your proof of this claim my friend? Link?

You do the research where they came from, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. I think you'll be surprised of the RCC connection.

 

[trofimus]

How did Belshazzer get into heaven?

Its a metaphor.

 

[Davenport]

If it "isn't perfect" then why use it? If it contains errors why use it? How could a "beginner" distinguish between truth and error? Aren't we to believe and trust every word?

Nothing is "inconsequential" when dealing with God's word. Every word should be read, studied, and believed. Can our God preserve His words perfectly in the English language?

I don't know many KJVO who believe the KJV. If you're a pretribber or you think wine means grape juice, you don't believe the KJV.

The KJV isn't perfect. Even assuming it is perfect, given the difficult and misleading archaic language, a couple of examples I've already pointed out, someone reading the imperfect, but still good, ESV will get closer to the truth than by reading the KJV.

You don't need a perfect translation. An imperfect translation can get us very close to the truth, especially when supplemented by original-language study. And, the claim the KJV is better than the original language is the height of stupidity. Not until the next life will we have complete knowledge.

You can scream all you want, the words left out of modern version have no doctrinal impact. E.g. it makes no difference in doctrine if a translation uses "Lord" 600 times or 500 times, Jesus is still Lord.

 

[trofimus]

Cleaned would imply you are saying they altered. That is a subjective comment. Baseless considering how the Jews viewed Scripture.

Jewish hatred towards Christians influenced them to "correct" some OT prophecies not to look so Christ-like. Or, at least, to choose such manuscripts that did not have them so Christ-like. The process is not important, the outcome is.

They used both. Many quotes in the of the OT are from both. Though if memory serves me correctly there are more word for word quotes from the LXX.

Not sure what you mean by "quotes are from both". If the text is the same in the LXX and Masoretic text? Well, that says nothing about what of them is actually used.

When the LXX and Masoretic text differ, the apostles prefer the LXX in like 80% of time.

Good for public worship? Are you implying that it is not good for anything else? Like personal devotional time?

The cleaned text, corrected sentences, more full titles for Christ (as "our Lord Jesus Christ" instead of simply "Jesus") is good for public reading. But you can personally read it too, of course. Its just better for a public reading than the minority, primitive and a little chaotic text.

Care to back this up with something other than you say so?

https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

Your comment is misleading. The Texus Receptus was derived from the Byzantine text (the Majority Text) The few are actually many.

Erasmus's textus receptus is considered to be a bad representative of the Majority text, he did not have good manuscripts.

 

[lightbearer]

What is your definition of "corrupt"?

Also, how can you say today that some manuscript from the 4th century was never used? Its just an unprovable hypothesis you invented.

All the erasing and foot notes written on it and the fact it was discarded says a lot.
And if I might add he is being no less subjective than you.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You do the research where they came from, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. I think you'll be surprised of the RCC connection.

I am not doing your job for you my friend. You made the claim, you need to back it up with proof to support your claim. Thanks my friend.

 

[trofimus]

All the erasing and foot notes written on it and the fact it was discarded says a lot.

The byzantine empire had professional copyists, therefore their late, hand made copies are more clean, consistent and with less typos and erasing than manuscripts from the first centuries made by common people under various circumstances.

It does not mean that byzantine manuscripts are more original text. It only means they were made by better-trained copyists. If they started with bad copies, their nice copying of the bad copies is not a proof of anything.

By "bad copies" I do not say its not good for studying the Bible, I just mean its in a worse condition.

 

[Davenport]

Cleaned would imply you are saying they altered. That is a subjective comment. Baseless considering how the Jews viewed Scripture.

The so-called Jews who compiled the Masoretic text (which the church didn't start using until around the time of the KJV) were children of the devil, and they didn't natively speak biblical Hebrew. They hated Jesus. Yes, they altered it. You can compare the Masoretic to the LXX and dead sea scrolls to see the changes they made.

They used both. Many quotes in the of the OT are from both. Though if memory serves me correctly there are more word for word quotes from the LXX. However I would not put much stock in that considering both the LXX and the NT are written in the Greek.

Most OT quotes in the NT appear to be from the LXX. The LXX was created by real Jews who loved God and natively spoke biblical Hebrew. Even Jesus freely quoted from it, giving it the Lord's approval. Jesus never quoted the Masoretic (if for no other reason, that text didn't yet exist). (Some NT quotes of the OT do appear more similar to the Masoretic than to the LXX.)