King James Manuscripts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17) As Bible-believing Christians we begin our search for truth with the Word of God. By faith, we accept what God has said and allow Him to prove it to be true. For example, we believe in special creation and oppose the theory of evolution because Scripture teaches man was created and did not evolve from a common primate. There are many convincing proofs in the realm of science that support Biblical creation, but we do not start with these. We start with God and His Word, and then interpret the evidence in the light of what God has said on the subject. The same may be said of the doctrine of salvation. It does not matter what some have taught, or how we feel. What is essential is the truth of salvation as revealed in God’s Word (Eph. 2:8-9). In like manner, when discussing the reconstruction of the New Testament (which is called textual criticism) as opposed to the doctrine of Biblical preservation, we must first start with Scripture itself. To do otherwise would be inconsistent.

The Scripture proclaims God’s words are true (John 17:17) and are without error (Psalm 119:140). The Bible claims God gave us the Scriptures by holy and divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). Further, the Bible states that God will keep and preserve His words longer then the existence of either heaven or earth (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35). Additionally, God says His words are "incorruptible" (1 Peter 1:23). The task of preservation does not rest on the labors of men; it rests in the promises of God. Thus, three times in Scripture the Lord warns mankind not to add to or take from the words of the Lord (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

All of this provides the Bible-centered Christian with a different starting point than the one that has influenced the thinking of modern Christendom. The Bible-believing Christian starts with the firm belief that God has inspired and given His Word free from all human error, and that this same God has kept and preserved those words. Thus, he begins with Scripture and ends with full assurance that God was able to do what He proclaimed He would do.

The starting point of modern scholarship is not rooted in the Bible itself. Instead, they begin with their understanding of the evidence, and give little or no regard to the Scriptural teachings concerning Biblical preservation. For example, noted textual scholar Dr. Alexander Souter states: >>Textual criticism seeks, by the exercise of knowledge and trained judgment, to restore the very words of some original document which has perished, and survives only in copies complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, ancient or modern. If we possessed the twenty-seven documents now composing our New Testament exactly in the form in which they were dictated or written by their original authors, there would be no textual criticism of the New Testament. The original documents, however, have long perished, and we have to make the best of the copies which have survived, by howsoever many removes they may be distant from their ultimate originals.<< [Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1917), 3.]

This definition seems logical from a human viewpoint. Dr. Souter, nevertheless, does not look to Divine intervention for the preservation and keeping of the Holy Script, but to "knowledge and trained judgment." The reconstruction of the Word of God, according to Souter, rests in the hands of learned men.

Dr. Donald A. Carson carries the thought of copyist error to its earliest point, by suggesting the writings which Paul had just finished were subject to human error.

>>Paul might write a letter to the church in Colossae while sitting under house arrest in Rome . . . but that letter was soon copied by several within the church, and by a few more in the sister church at nearby Laodicea. Perhaps one of the members on a business trip to Macedonia took a copy with him; and while in Philippi he copied out the Letter to the Phillippians at the same time someone in the church at Philippi copied out the Letter to the Colossians. Of course any error that the Colossian businessman inadvertently introduced into his own copy of Paul's letter to the Colossians would get picked up by the Philippians copier.<< [Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 16.]

Drs. Geisler and Nix also depend upon the science of textual criticism to solve various errata that has crept into the process of transmission.

>>Since the Scriptures have undergone some two thousand years of transmission, it is only natural to ask: How much has the Bible suffered in the process? Or, to put it more precisely: Is the twentieth century English Bible an accurate reproduction of the first century Greek Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament? The answer to this question comes from the science of textual criticism. <<[ Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 211.]

Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary states, >> . . . a theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.<< [Dan B. Wallace, "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, And Critique." Ehrman, Bart and Holmes, Michael (editors), The Text Of The New Testament In Contemporary Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 309.]Therefore, an a-theological approach to textual criticism becomes the only consideration of the modern scholar, whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative. Therefore, this approach to the subject deliberately removes God’s Word from the context. It then becomes a matter of the understanding of man, and not the promise of God.

The conclusion of this, as set forth by modern scholarship, can be seen in the first line of the closing paragraph of the New International Version's Preface. >>Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.<< [The New International Study Bible, 1985 ed., s.v. "Preface," xiii.] Thus, the judgments and insights of scholars, their desire to excel in the discipline of textual criticism, only provides imperfections that fall short. Modern scholarship begins with the knowledge of men and the science of textual criticism. Their final conclusion is not certainty, but ambiguity. They are certain that they are right, but they are uncertain as to the final product.

It seems rather amazing, from a Scriptural point of view, that God was able to give His words without error (inspiration) and provide us with the knowledge as to which books were His words (canonicity), only to lose them in the process of transmission. Yet, this is what modern scholarship expects us to believe. Thus, according to those listed above, the complete Bible (all sixty-six books) was given by inspiration of God, but must depend upon the integrity and intelligence of scholarship to provide for us the best and most accurate copy of what was initially given.

Dr. James R. White (a noted advocate of modern versions and one who decries the supporters of the Authorized Version and the Greek and Hebrew texts which underline it) writes, >>Men make mistakes, even when they are trying really hard. The greatest baseball player still strikes out. The greatest basketball player will miss the clutch free-throw and lose a game once in a while. The best archer will sometimes fire an arrow wide of the target. To err is human. . .there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human.<< [James R. White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995), 36.]

>>You see, if readings could just "disappear" without a trace, we would have to face the fact that the original reading may have "fallen through the cracks" as well. But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.<< [White, 48.]

However, modern scholarship DOES claim that some readings have "disappeared." Concerning the reading of 1 Samuel 13:1, Dr. Charles Ryrie states; >>The original numbers in this verse have apparently been lost in transmission.<< [The Ryrie Study Bible, 1978 KJV ed., s.v. "footnote," 432.] White himself does not believe the ending of Mark 16:9-20 to be the proper ending of that gospel but was added at some later date [White, 255-257.]. Have we lost the real ending to Mark's gospel? If not, where is it? As one can see, redefining preservation leaves us on shaky ground. The Scriptures remind us that "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Psalm 118:8); and, "As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: He is a buckler to all them that trust in Him." (2 Samuel 22:31).

We cannot trust man, for he will lie (Romans 3:4). The arm of flesh will fail us (2 Chronicles 32:8). But we can be assured that God is quite able to keep and preserve His words without error, and that we still have these preserved words today. In fact, according to Christ, from the time of their inception well past the destruction of heaven and earth God’s words remain with us (Matt. 24:35).

>>KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the "preservation of the Scriptures." Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these "words" are found in the KJV. At this point they believe themselves to be holding the "high ground" in the debate, fighting for a belief that all Christians would naturally defend: the idea that God has revealed himself, and has done so in such a way that we can continue to know that revelation perfectly today.<< [White, 47.]

In 1997 the author debated Dr. White on the subject of Biblical preservation. At the outset of the debate Dr. White stated,

>>This is not a debate between one person who believes in Biblical preservation and one who doesn’t. I believe very strongly and very firmly in the doctrine of Biblical preservation. The question is how did God do it?<< [Defend the Faith ’97, VHS, White/Holland King James Version Debate (Mount Carmel Outreach. P. O. Box 491, Carmel, IN 46032).]

Yet, despite these claims, Dr. White offers no textual support for his claim in Biblical preservation. Instead, he derides every verse that supports Biblical preservation.

At this point, the Bible-believing Christian must insist that God did not profess to give us His words only to allow them to be lost or tainted. If we are to believe the Scriptures (Scriptura est vitae magistra) we must believe in Biblical preservation. If the Scriptures teach the preservation of God’s words, and it is clear from the following passages that they do, then we must either accept the truth of preservation or reject the testimony of Scripture. God, being true, has promised throughout His Word to preserve what He has given. And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. (1 Samuel 3:19).

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7).

He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. (Psalm 105:8).

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (Psalm 119:160).

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2).

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isaiah 40:8).

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35).

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25).

God gave us His words (inspiration and canonicity) and He has kept His words (transmission and preservation). The final authority rests with God, not with scholarship (Hebrews 4:12-13). However, man likes to assert this role. When the claim is made that two or more translations or texts are the final authority, and they differ in subject or content; then an additional authority must be introduced to resolve the conflict. Scholarship has reserved for itself this role. It judges which translation or text is the correct one. In so doing, it has made itself the final authority.

Textual criticism is a science that seeks to reconstruct the original text of Scripture based on the existing manuscripts and Biblical citations within the patriarchs of church history. Because there are differences within the existing manuscripts, and because the historical writings of the church fathers reflect many of these differences, the science of textual criticism becomes conjectural. Different scholars, examining the same manuscripts, will most likely produce differing Greek texts that they believe reflect the original stance of the New Testament. This is precisely why there are now three basic texts of the New Testament in circulation within the frame of Christendom. These three texts are the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text is the basis for the majority of modern translations of the Bible today. It is currently reflected in the Greek New Testaments of the United Bible Societies (4th edition) and the Nestle-Aland (27th edition). These two texts are identical in regard to their Greek text, but differ in regard to their textual apparatus. For the most part, the Critical Text reflects a textual line usually called Alexandrian, and does not reflect the traditional Greek text of the Reformation. The Majority Text is a work in progress. As the name suggests, it catalogs the majority of the existing Greek manuscripts and reflects a consensus of these manuscripts. The Textus Receptus was the standard Greek text for centuries and was used by Protestant translators during the Reformation. It is responsible for the Authorized Version and its English forerunners. The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are very similar (in all but the book of Revelation) because both reflect the majority of existing Greek manuscripts.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. Unfortunately, none of the original manuscripts exist today. There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing. To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and over 9,000 manuscripts of ancient translations of the New Testament. When these manuscripts disagree we call these differences textual variants. It is important to note that the vast majority of these textual variants came into existence before the beginning of the third century. [This comment may draw some criticism from supporters of modern versions, but it is supported by modern scholarship. Noted textual scholar Dr. George D. Kilpatrick writes: "Professor H. Vogels has suggested that, apart from errors, the great majority of variants in the New Testament text came into being before A. D. 200. This seems reasonable." The Principles And Practice Of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 34.] This is significant because the majority of existing manuscripts date after this period. Therefore, the age of a textual variant is not limited to its parent manuscript. The history of New Testament manuscripts is divided, roughly, into three periods: papyrus, vellum, and paper. The manuscripts we have were written on one of these three and often reflect the date of the manuscript.

Papyrus [there are currently over 88 different Greek papyrus manuscripts] is made from papyrus plants that grew abundantly in Egypt. The inner bark of the plant was cut into thin strips and were laid side by side and crossed with other strips. They were then pressed together and sun dried. The papyrus was, for the most part, written only on one side and bound together in rolls. The custom was to write in very narrow columns that had no separation of words, accents marks, or punctuation. Philippians 1:1-2, in Greek, would read something like this:

PAULOSAPPOTOSTOLOSINSOUCRISTOUDIAQ ELNMATOSQEOUYOISAGIOISTOISOUSINENEF ESWKAIPISTOISENCPISTWINSOUCARISUMO NKAIEIRNAPOQEOUPATROSNMWNKAIKURIOUI NSOUCRISTOU

Even in English, the reading becomes difficult and dismisses the notion that early scribes were concerned with an easy to read translation.

PAULANDTIMOTHEUSTHESERVANTSOFJESU SCHRISTTOALLTHESAINTSINCHRISTJESUSWH ICHAREATPHILIPPIWITHTHEBISHOPSANDDEA CONSGRACEBEUNTOYOUANDPEACEFROMG ODOURFATHERANDFROMTHELORDJESUSCH RIST

Paragraphs were marked with a line in the margin of the text. The Greek word para means beside, and the Greek word grafo means writing. Thus, paragraph. The papyrus manuscripts are very fragile, most of what we have are fragments. This period lasted until the seventh century.

Manuscripts written on vellum (or in some cases on parchment) comprise the period from about the end of the third century to the fifteenth century. The narrow columns that were used in the papyrus manuscripts were maintained in the vellum manuscripts. Vellum is made of dried animal skins that were cut into leaves and formed into a book called a codex. Some vellum manuscripts maintain the same style of writing used in papyrus manuscripts. This style is referred to as uncials[there are currently 274 known Greek uncial manuscripts], which consists of all capital letters written without accent marks, punctuation, or separation of words or sentences. Later, around the ninth century, the use of small letters with spacing between words was used. These manuscripts are referred to as minuscules or cursive [there are currently 2,795 known Greek minuscules manuscripts].

Manuscripts written on paper cover from about the fourteenth century to the present. Until this period, it was rare to have a complete Bible in one book. Most of the papyrus and vellum manuscripts are fragments, passages, or maybe a book of the New Testament. But, in the thirteenth century whole books containing all or most of the New Testament became common.

There are three classes of evidence used by textual critics in the reconstruction of the New Testament [I use the term reconstruction because it is a term used by textual critics. Personally, I do not believe the New Testament needs to be reconstructed in the common use of the word because I do not believe it was ever lost.]. First, the main source for reconstructing the New Testament comes from Greek manuscripts, which exist in the forms listed above and contain variances. These manuscripts are classified into one of four families, or textual types. 1) The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire because it is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. Most manuscripts are of this family. In fact, there are far more manuscripts of this type than of the other three combined. This line of manuscripts would also reflect the Greek Textus Receptus that was used to produce the King James Bible. This line is also called the Traditional Text or the Syrian Text.

2) The Alexandrian Text. The name comes from Alexandria, Egypt where scribes prepared most of these texts. It is from this family of manuscripts that most modern versions are based. The three main manuscripts of this family are Alexandrinus (5th century) [Codex Alexandrinus is of the Alexandrian textual line except in the four Gospels. There it reflects the Byzantine textual line], Sinaiticus (4th century), and Vaticanus (4th century).

3) The Western Text. There is a debate among scholars if this is a real family of manuscripts or not. Some believe it reflects a different family, while others believe the differences are so minor that they do not deserve a classification of their own. The text is longer than the Alexandrian and is close to the Syrian-Byzantine textual line. Some have considered this the oldest textual line. Codex Bezae in the Gospels and Acts, and Codex Claromontanus in the Epistles reflect the Western Text. The majority of the Old Latin manuscripts are also classified as Western.

4) The Caesarean Text. This family seems to be a mixture of the Western and Alexandrian line of manuscripts. Some believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and brought to Caesarea. Because it is a mixture, some question if this should be classified as a family.

The second source for making a Greek text comes from ancient versions. Since these versions were translated from something, they are used as a source for establishing a Greek text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there are a variety of ancient versions that do not agree. Among these are the Old Latin versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome's Latin Vulgate), Syrian (including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian), Gothic (early German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful because they not only had to have a source for their translation, but also show what the non-Greek reading world used.

The third source is from the quotations of the early Church Fathers. These are called Patristic citations. When the theological writers of the first few centuries quoted Scripture, their quotations are used. Again, we have a difference in several of the quotations, showing that from the very start there were differences in New Testament texts. More will be given about some of the early Church Fathers in later chapters.

Paul warned that "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (2 Corinthians 2:17). He also writes, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2). There have always been those who sought to corrupt the incorruptible Word of God. Like Satan, they question and quote Scripture dishonestly for their own gain (Genesis 3:1; Matthew 4:6). This is not to say all the early church theologians or manuscripts are corrupt, but that we cannot trust any one of these sources as the final authority. Instead, we must depend upon the providence of God to preserve His words and demonstrate where this preserved Word is.

Other sources used in reconstruction include lectionaries [there are currently 2,193 known Greek lectionary manuscripts] and apocryphal writings. Lectionaries were books used by the early church that contained lessons, hymns, and citations from passages of Scripture. These would show that certain Scriptures were in use at a given time and substantiate a questioned text. Apocryphal writings would be citations from books contemporary with the New Testament. Although not inspired, they often quote Scripture. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples. [The citations here taken mostly from Archbishop Wake’s translation as found in The Lost Books of The Bible (World Bible Publishers, Inc.). Chapter and verse divisions may differ from that of Lightfoot’s translation.]

The King James Bible reads, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10). Most modern versions read as the New American Standard Version, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians quotes the verse "And must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (2:18). Whether Polycarp wrote this letter or not we do not know. We do know that manuscripts of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians date to 150 AD, which provides a second century reading supporting the textual variant in favor of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version of 1611.

The same is true of 1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Modern versions leave out the phrase "is come in the flesh". Again, in Polycarp to the Philippians 3:1 we read, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is antichrist." We can see that the writer of this book agreed with the rendering of the Traditional Text.

Until the early 1800's the Textus Receptus was the only Greek Text used, at least where Protestant scholarship is concerned. Dr. Kurt Aland, who helped with the Critical Text, wrote: >>Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original text.'<< [Kurt Aland, "The Text of the Church," Trinity Journal Fall (1987): 131.] Critics of the Textus Receptus cite that this text is recent and not reflective of early manuscripts. However, there is early support for the Textus Receptus. The Chester Beatty Papyri (P45, P46, and P66) all have readings that reflect the Textus Receptus. These papyri date to the early third century. Codex W dates from the fourth to early fifth century. It contains the Gospels, yet uses several of the various lines of manuscripts. While most of Mark and part of John reflect the Alexandrian and Western lines, >>(all of) Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:25 are Byzantine.<< [Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 281.] Even Codex A (i.e. Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD) reflects the Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus in the Gospels, leaving the Epistles to reflect the Alexandrian line. Likewise, the early translations such as the Peshitta (second century) and the Gothic (dating around 350 AD) support the Textus Receptus. In fact, Sir Fredric Kenyon, another noted textual scholar, has stated that the Gothic version represents the type of text, >>which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.<< [Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912), 240.]

Additionally, the majority of all existing manuscripts supports the Textus Receptus and opposes the textual variants found in the Critical Text. The question has been asked: >>Why would God allow the majority of manuscripts to be of this line if it is incorrect, while only a handful of manuscripts reflect the views of modern textual critics?" (Such was the question raised by Dean John William Burgon).<< [Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (1883; reprint, Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1980).]We would also ask the following. If the traditional line of manuscripts is not the correct line, why has God so greatly blessed this line and the translations of the Textus Receptus throughout the history of the Church? Certainly one thing is very clear from the Bible itself. The Lord has promised to keep and preserve His words throughout the ages (Matthew 24:35).

Alright.

At the outset, let's establish some ground rules. No ad hominem attacks -- I will not disparage you for using the KJV, and I expect the same courtesy regarding my use of the NAS. I am not a part of some new age conspiracy to corrupt the Scriptures. I dont want this to get like the Calvinism threads sometimes do -- I've consistently been against the excesses of some within my camp on those threads.

You and I have absolutely no debate regarding the necessity for preservation -- I do not disclaim the preservation of the Scriptures. But I do not believe they have been preserved in English, and certainly not in an archaic 1611 version.

Nor do I consistently favor the renderings of any particular translation. I use several. Until recently, I used the KJV most of the time, but I am running into problems when I work outside of the old-fashioned denomination I grew up in. It was too much of a hassle explaining Elizabethean diction and structure to uninitiated Christians. But when I write or prepare a message, I don't use any single version. Usually, I use the NASB (1995 edition), NKJV, or Darby versions. I'll occasionaly refer to the NIV or NLT to check out a "dynamically equivilant" rendering, but I am not a big fan of that translation philosophy for any serious study. Still, they have their place.

I don't agree with all the textual conclusions the NASB draws, either. I especially remember researching pretty in-depth John 5:3-4 because I vehemntly disagreed with someone who rejected them as spurious, like the NASB does.

In order for the KJV-only position to be rational, you must present a reasonable proof that the KJV (not just the Word of God in its original autographs) is flawless. Thats a bit of a challange, since the KJV is never referred to in the Biblical text. But the onus is on the person who claims a flawless translation to back up the claim. (And forget those verse charts. I can produce similar ones for the KJV. They prove nothing.)

Finally, an argument based on precedent. Check out the Septuigent. It was translated very quickly -- I think in less than 100 days -- at the request of the king of Alexandria (which was merely a library). Yet this was the Scriptures used by the apostles, even though it is considered to be a shoddy translation in parts. The following is from my notes from a Christian Apologetics class I took through Campus Crusade for Christ:

The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation; the Psalms and more especially the book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetance. The translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature than with Semitic poetry; the treanslator of Daniel indulges at times in a Midrashic [Jewish commentary or exegesis] paraphrse. The version of Judges which appears in our oldest Greek uncial MSS has been suspected by a recent critic of being the work of the 4t century AD, the Greek Ecclesiastes savours the school of Aquila." -- HB Swete.

Don't let the use of criticism here faze you -- this is the legitimate domain of criticism -- what is a typographical error, and what belongs. Even the KJV translators had to do it, too.

Alright. At the outset, let's establish some ground rules. No ad hominem attacks -- I will not disparage you for using the KJV, and I expect the same courtesy regarding my use of the NAS.

Amen. I'll save my Ad Hominem for Woody and Jean!

I am not a part of some new age conspiracy to corrupt the Scriptures.

Amen.

I dont want this to get like the Calvinism threads sometimes do -- I've consistently been against the excesses of some within my camp on those threads.

Amen.

Alright. Do you believe they are in the Greek and Hebrew texts and which ones? Critical (Alexandrian) or Received (Textus Receptus)?

Alright.

Amen

I do not think the onus is on me. I have a Book that is almost 400 years old, still bearing fruit, still being attacked, still being copied.

I believe the responsibility to show that the King James has been improved upon is up to those who are competing against it.

Shakespeare doesn't have to prove he is the greatest playright to ever lived.

(And forget those verse charts. I can produce similar ones for the KJV. They prove nothing.)

Well, they prove alot more then the critics would have you believe. Most people are not aware of the omissions in the New Age versions, thinking that only the language has been simplified.

But, that would not prove the King James is perfect either.

I hate to break this to you but that story about the Septuagint is just that, a myth.

Nor is there a record of any Apostle using the Septuagint.

We could discuss this at a later time if you like, but the Septuagint we have today is from Origen's Hexapla which is from the 3-4th century AD, not a BC document.

The only evidence of a BC document are a few scraps from the Torah.

No other books from the Sept. have ever been found.

But enough about that.

The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation; the Psalms and more especially the book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetance. The translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature than with Semitic poetry; the treanslator of Daniel indulges at times in a Midrashic [Jewish commentary or exegesis] paraphrse. The version of Judges which appears in our oldest Greek uncial MSS has been suspected by a recent critic of being the work of the 4t century AD, the Greek Ecclesiastes savours the school of Aquila." -- HB Swete.

Amen! The books are very poorly translated and were not translated at the same time.

Don't let the use of criticism here faze you -- this is the legitimate domain of criticism -- what is a typographical error, and what belongs. Even the KJV translators had to do it, too.

No problem.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.