Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

organgrinder

Well-known member
Not completely true the KJV was translated from the majority texts not the minority texts. Considering the manu scripts the KJV was not exactly the new kid on the block.
You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.
I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Here is what I wrote, Leatherneck:
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?

Your issue is that the KJV is the only English translation we should use. That is what KJVOs tell us. New translations are perversions-- even the NKJV which is translated from the TR. Now how many English Bibles were there before the KJV? What texts were used by the translators? Was the Roman Catholic Vulgate used at all ( a version which had been around 1,000 years before the KJV)? I might add that Jesus and Paul both quoted from the Septuagint. KJVO folk don't hold that rendering in high esteem either.

The point is, older manuscripts and partials/fragments have been found. There have been plenty. What Erasmus-- a Catholic monk/priest-- used was about 6 manuscripts as I recall. Others can correct me if I am wrong. Had the older manuscripts been available, they would have been utilized just as the Vulgate was also utilized. I have found the KJV to be the best crib source for the Vulgate. Some difficult passages in the Latin were made clearer and the grammar understood by referring to the KJV when translating the Vulgate.

I was in a Bible study 45 years ago and happened to have both my KJV and Latin New Testament with me. One person in the study didn't have a Bible. I lended mine for the study and used the Latin New Testament. when called upon to read a section of scripture, I translated the Latin word-for-word as it was in the KJV. The Vulgate was used as a translation aid as were the earlier English Bible renderings.

You and the KJVO crowd demonize the new translations because they are not the KJV. They are translations based on the available manuscripts. The newer translations-- the NWT being the exception-- will all have the Gospel of faith alone, grace alone, the divinity of Jesus, blood atonement, etc. in them. There are no specific Catholic doctrines pushed. And yes, there will be some translation errors, just as there are in the KJV.

The KJV is fine for what it is and was. It is not the end all. God's word to man is revealed in all the translations, and the best translation is the one you read, study and understand everyday. Nobody here is demonizing the KJV. We just don't put it on a pedestal bordering on idol worship as the KJVO crowd appears to do.

God has preserved His word. You find that in all translations. If you understand what a translation is and what it isn't, you will understand that.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.
And I have numerous times challenged your anachronistic use of "minority texts" in connection with, for example, the early church period and at least once exposed your error on the whereabouts of a key manuscript, which is housed right alongside a key Byzantine text-type manuscript for the gospels. Per usual, you offer nothing new or substantive in the face of critique...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Shoonra

Active member
What Leatherneck disparages as "Minority texts" are actually the majority of texts and versions dating back to no later than the 5th and early 6th century.
The so-called Majority Text is based heavily on later resources, some dating after the Crusades, showing errors and questionable readings copied and recopied.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
What Leatherneck disparages as "Minority texts" are actually the majority of texts and versions dating back to no later than the 5th and early 6th century.
The so-called Majority Text is based heavily on later resources, some dating after the Crusades, showing errors and questionable readings copied and recopied.
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring.

I believe attacking modern translations to promote the KJV is a red herring.

I also believe attacking the manuscript evidence that doesn't support the KJV is a red herring.

Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question.

Just so you know, attempting to control the behaviour of posters (ie. trying to tell them what to do) is a breach of CARM rules. And if you get suspended for it, I won't be shedding any tears.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.

I will look forward to you providing EVIDENCE for all your false claims.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The learned men of the Reformation Bible era were aware of Vaticanus and Bezae. They were correctly considered corrupt manuscripts.

1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?

2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

3) I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers from you...
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?

2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

3) I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers from you...
Got ya, anybody that disagrees with you is wrong, and only your sources are correct.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Got ya, anybody that disagrees with you is wrong, and only your sources are correct.

Huh?
The poster made some unsubstantiated claims.
Since I'm not gullible, I need to see some evidence for those claims.
The fact that you try to criticize me as allegedly unreasonable, simply because your buddy can't support his false claims, speaks volumes.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?
2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

We have the words written by Erasmus on Vaticanus.
We have the words written by Theodore Beza on Codex Bezae. It was sitting in Cambridge by 1611.

Alexandrinus comes out better, at least in the Gospels, so it, and Washingtonianus, are not really important to the textual critics trying to foist corrupt texts.

The massive differences between these manuscripts prove their corruption.
John William Burgon explains that well, he actually looks at five mss.
 
Top