MV’s are changing God’s word on who’s authority ? ?

TC Calvinist

Active member
John 10:30 Jesus said,”I and myFather are one”. Most MV’s say “ I and the Father are one”. The Father is not necessarily my Father, and to change the wording based on the corrupted minority texts diminishes who Jesus actually is and His position. Satan did the very same in the garden of Eden when he said to Eve “has God said”.

I think the most amusing spectacle of the whole discussion is the fact that compared with, say, the original or even the Latin Vulgate, the KJV is BY COMPARISON a "modern version."

The KJV is closer in time to now than to the Vulgate or the original text. Sounds modern to me.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
I think the most amusing spectacle of the whole discussion is the fact that compared with, say, the original or even the Latin Vulgate, the KJV is BY COMPARISON a "modern version."

The KJV is closer in time to now than to the Vulgate or the original text. Sounds modern to me.

Exactly, The KJVOist talks of the "old paths" of the KJV without even realizing they're not even close to being the "ballpark" of being "old"......
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I think the most amusing spectacle of the whole discussion is the fact that compared with, say, the original or even the Latin Vulgate, the KJV is BY COMPARISON a "modern version."

The KJV is closer in time to now than to the Vulgate or the original text. Sounds modern to me.
Again it will isn’t about old or new or modern or archaic it is about majority or minority texts, but nice dodge though.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
Again it will isn’t about old or new or modern or archaic it is about majority or minority texts, but nice dodge though.

Ok.

So you reject 1 John 5:7 and Col. 1:14 and Rev. 16:5 among other passages, do I understand you correctly?
Or do you wish to clarify?

I would add that it IS in fact about "old," even for you...since the oldest manuscript ever would be the original.
And I assume you're arguing for originality for the KJV readings or at least some of them.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Again it will isn’t about old or new or modern or archaic it is about majority or minority texts, but nice dodge though.
You are the one who keeps dodging facts and keeps making assertions involving use of fallacies.

The KJV was not translated from any actual original language texts where every one of its readings are found in a majority of existing original-language manuscripts.

What you inaccurately label "minority texts" have a majority of their readings being the same as a majority text. Because a text has some minority readings does not make it right to claim or suggest its entire text is a minority text. That claim would involve use of the fallacy of composition.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Ok.

So you reject 1 John 5:7 and Col. 1:14 and Rev. 16:5 among other passages, do I understand you correctly?
Or do you wish to clarify?

I would add that it IS in fact about "old," even for you...since the oldest manuscript ever would be the original.
And I assume you're arguing for originality for the KJV readings or at least some of them.
Why do you think the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupted ?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Why do you think the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupted ?
You do not demonstrate that your question is valid.
The Reformers did not completely reject so-called minority texts since they used texts that had some minority readings in them. Erasmus added several minority readings to his edited Greek NT edition.
 
Top