Reasons the King James Bible is Superior to the "Originals"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Received Text

That term was a marketing scam of a book publisher to sell his own printing of the already printed version from Erasmus. There were no copy right laws in effect so printers used hype to get customers to buy their version of what is essentially exactly the same thing the next printer was selling.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Received Text

That term was a marketing scam of a book publisher to sell his own printing of the already printed version from Erasmus. There were no copy right laws in effect so printers used hype to get customers to buy their version of what is essentially exactly the same thing the next printer was selling.

Alright, pick one you like better, all these will do:

Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If you are trying to make a point, go ahead and do it and stop with the game playing and make an actual statement because you are not proving your point (if you even have a point) with your silly jokes.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If you are trying to make a point, go ahead and do it and stop with the game playing and make an actual statement because you are not proving your point (if you even have a point) with your silly jokes.

I already have, twice. I'm sorry you missed it, scroll back and retry. I'm not going to explain it yet again.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Is it too laborious for you to type a complete sentence?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dude .. you are missing 7 books. And Martin Luther screwed with it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Is it too laborious for you to type a complete sentence?

Apparently less laborious than scrolling up with the mouse??

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Dude .. you are missing 7 books. And Martin Luther screwed with it.

THIS Martin Luther screwed with the KJB? You're telling me this man who died in 1546 screwed with the 1611 KJB? And the 1611 KJB HAD the apocrypha included, modern ones do not.

Let's put this in perspective, shall we, instead of trading insults? The Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, has MUCH more documentary momentum than Westcott & Hort's Greek text, which relies heavily on two [NEW!] [IMPROVED!!] documents found in modern times. Those of us in the know, however, know that both of these documents are inferior and defective, whatever a delight they may be to scholars because they are slightly older than any others we have on hand. Further, the KJV II project vindicates the KJV 1611 in total, crunching virtually every Biblical document in existence in a supercomputer, and producing a Bible which is only 1 % different from the 1611. Most of this difference can be accounted for by the slight modernization of the language.

I got rid of my NASB, and my expensive NIV. You should too.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm just asking that you have a point and you make it, without all your deception thrown in to make it just look like you made an argument while your real intent seems to be just to goof on people.
Please make an actual presentation of your standing, meaning your position and clearly what it is and what is it you are bringing to bear to support it. Throwing out a list means nothing without explaining what it is or why you posted it.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

. . . MUCH more documentary momentum than Westcott & Hort's Greek text . . .

For anyone who read this and can make no sense of it, that would be normal and don't feel like you are stupid or something, this is a nonsensical bit of hype (supporting the KJV) and there is no real substance to the above post (the one I just quoted here). The best thing to do is to read some unbiased material.

onward, From Wikipedia:
Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was a British bishop, Biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death. In March 1890 he was nominated to follow in the steps of his beloved friend Lightfoot, who had died in December 1889.
The principles which are explained in Hort's introduction to the text had been arrived at after years of elaborate investigation and continual correspondence and discussion between the two friends. The place which it almost at once took among scientific scholars in Britain and throughout Europe was a recognition of the great advance which it represented in the use and classification of ancient authorities. His commentaries rank with Lightfoot's as the best type of Biblical exegesis produced by the English Church in the 19th century.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Wikipedia? I am not impressed. Get serious with your argument, pls.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

I got rid of my NASB, and my expensive NIV. You should too.

YESSSS!!!!! Success!!!!! Hopefully I had a small hand in helping you make this decision, but if not, I am still "tickled pink" that you made this glorious statement

(I have 34 different English "bibles" in my Library, all first editions. That way I can keep track of the publishers when they change the text in their new editions of the bibles to sell more. My fav is the 1974 edition of the "Living Bible" that has cuss words in it which include "son of a B!tc^", and much more.....what fools)

reply to post by KJV1611


Actually, I did that some years ago, partly due to the input of my KJV-loyalist father. You know, I think most (not all) of the difference between the Textus Receptus and the modernist camps is attitude. Now King James I may have been a totally rotten man, but so what? Could God use him? Of course! He didn't do the translation anyway, and those who did, did so with prayer, sound procedure, and good attitude. The modernist camp, on the other hand, is arrogant enough to think they (without input from the Source) can decide what belongs in the Book and what does not. I see it as more a product of academia and the need for endless PhD theses, than good Biblical scholarship. I prefer a New Testament which does not leave out this or that, and in case the lack of the Apocrypha is an issue, you can just have it in a separate book - I have two copies.

So there it is:

the King James issue - a red herring

the text issue - attitude and/or your ears are tickling for something new, but usually not better

the Apocrypha issue - you can have it separate, and what's wrong with that?

lastly, the original texts vs the KJV issue - yes and no, and I think they are both essential. We need the KJV for
meaning in the English language, but we need the Greek and Hebrew for the special coding they contain, which
does not translate.

I think this thread is now resolved.

BTW, KJV1611, if you have all those versions in order to keep track of negative changes/revisions/perversions of the text, that makes you a Watchman on the Wall, and a Guardian at the Gate. May God bless you in all that you do!

reply to post by Lazarus Short


I am not arguing with you since you are obviously delusional and impervious to rationality.
I was writing for the benefit of people who may not have an academic background in biblical studies and may be duped by superficial arguments such as those presented by KJV only fans.

The best reason I can thing of to use the King James Bible is because it is the only non-corrupt english translation in-print that uses the correct greek manuscripts the textus receptus and not the corrupt nestle texts.

reply to post by jmdewey60


OK, fine, I didn't understand your last response either, and don't care for that matter. We will see who has delusions. We have no common ground, it seems.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

. . .textus receptus . . .

This term is something which was in the preface of an edition of the Erasmus version of a Byzantium text of the Greek New Testament. There was no other text in print, seeing how printing was at that time a new technology and actual printing of anything was new. The lack of copy-right laws (since there was need for any before then) allowed anyone with a press to take another book and copy it and sell it if they can. One method of having customers buy your printing instead of another printing, was to add a front page where the printers make bold claims of superiority. One such claim by one printer was that his version was the one that was universally received by all the academics and clergy of the day. He failed to mention there was only one version in existence, which was the one by Erasmus, who added parts missing from his manuscript by translating from the Latin, passages into the Greek and wrote it the way he thought it sounded better than the original, and this includes the entire last chapter of Revelation.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

OK, fine, I didn't understand your last response either, and don't care for that matter. We will see who has delusions. We have no common ground, it seems.

It was a nice way to say you are a fanatic but apparently you have no comprehension of the concept.
A fanatic will only find common ground with others of the same party that he is a fanatic for, so this statement should be a wake-up call to yourself that you have fallen under a delusion and you need to disassociate yourself from your cult long enough for the miasma to dissipate from your mind a bit so you can see clearly that you are in a cult.

reply to post by KJV1611


Has anyone here EVER checked into WHY the King James version was written?

"in 1539 Coverdale was hired by the Archbishop of Canterbury to publish the “Great Bible.” King Henry VIII divorced his wife, Catherine of Aragon, without the Pope's approval, making himself head of his new Church, the Anglican Church."

This is the very first english translation that allowed for divorce which had before this been illegal. THEN...

"After Queen Elizabeth I died, James I of England took over. The Protestants went to him asking for a new translation of the Bible; one with cross-references or word clarifications for the people. So about fifty scholars got together and started a huge task of producing the King James Bible. They brought together The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Roman Catholic Bible, called the Rheims New Testament. This production was called The 1611 King James Bible. The “Great Bible” was the first legal English Bible, funded by the King. Several copies were made and given to each church, also providing someone to read it, so that everyone could hear the Bible in English."

With this many translations all FUNDED BY THE KINGS do you truly believe EVERYTHING that is in these bibles. God tells me everything I need to know in my heart. I cannot follow the words of corrupt men and all men are corrupt.

www.hyperhistory.net...